Fear and loathing of people with mental illness in Feminists’ reading of Shulamith Firestone’s Airless Spaces: an unauthorized biography

Before I explain who I am and what right do I have to be writing an “un-authorized” biography of Shulamith Firestone (SF), consider the following paragraph (and the two badges to the right of this post):

SF “plunged out of history” sometime between the late 70s and early 1980s due to mental illness, which was probably caused by her long ideological fights with feminists, only to come back in the last 10 years of her life to write her second and last book, Airless Spaces. This is a “scary” book “not about feminism or politics but about her experience with schizophrenia.” It “seems designed explicitly to discourage sympathy” for people with mental illness, for it “makes us feel wary of forcing these short, terse, anti-pitying vignettes of illness and hospitalization into political or personal symbolism”. Airless Spaces is by no means an intimidating work”. She died of ‘complications’ with mental illness.

[All quotes above from Shulamith Firestone’s Airless Spaces by Sianne Ngai. All quotes on this post will come from that article, the focus of my discussion about feminists reading of Airless Spaces because it’s the one I found to be the most offensive.]

A not so ‘beautiful mind’: feminists angry at their ‘fallen icon’

That is how current and future bios about SF will end if her last 20 years of life continue to be ignored or covered up, reduced by some intellectual feminists to two or three unsympathetic sentences about her mental illness. You see, the lives of highly intelligent men with mental illness (mi) can be made inspirational, as in the movie A Beautiful Mind, their work saved from the ‘stain of mi.’ and actually presented as its magical product. Women’s, their mind and work are professionally ‘deconstructed‘ (as in butchered) by the ‘razor-sharp’ feminist critique, then presented to you as unappealing, irrational, devoid of inspirational qualities to others: in other words, without the tiniest smidgen of saving grace.

I can see where this ‘feminists anger’ at Firestone comes from. They imagine their icon, the fiery SF who challenged the male oligarchy at age 25, been passively carted out to a psych ward and involuntarily been pumped with psych meds.

In “Hospital” the characters are all dosed with medication, can’t sleep, gain weight,”

Not a salutary image to celebrate, is it?

It is as if they feel shamed and betrayed by her:

Nothing—not gender, class, race, or sexuality; nor shared or common oppressions based on these categories of social difference—defines the people in Airless Spaces more than the hospital does.”

How dare Firestone expose her ‘weakness’, and in a non-feminist book to boot.

Except that it is an illusion, not a reflection of reality. That image, represented in Mrs. Ngai’s reading of Airless Spaces (AS), is the artful construct of the ‘fear and loathing of people with mental illness we all carry hidden in the depths of our mind, using all the stereotypes and prejudices it has filed away for years in our mind’s rotary file cabinet.  You (general you)  didn’t get that image from reading AS; it has been there in your mind long before you read it. You just stuck SF’s ‘ugly photo’ in it and called it “SF’s plunge out of history“.

Airless Spaces: the object of Feminists’ scorn

The paratexts of Airless Spaces are hardly inviting: unhappy title, hospital-blue cover with dull, barely-distinguishable beige print, and large, anxious, unhappy-looking close-up of Firestone on the back cover.  “

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347425556l/667855.jpg

Todus criminalis, She just could find absolutely nothing positive to say about the book or author: bad from front to back cover and everything in between.

A feminist attack on an ill ‘sister’ can hardly get any more vicious and callous than that: Mrs. Ngai wrote that ‘lovely’ opinion in the belief that SF was alive, which means that she must have considered the possibility that Firestone would find her article and read it. It seems as if she intended to shame her publicly for becoming mentally ill and for daring to write about it. It’s the old story: people with mental illness can’t expect compassion from a normal and rational society, especially if you are a woman.

Mrs. Ngai expressions in her judgment on AS and Firestone through out her post is precisely what Firestone is depicting in AS: the destructive impact of social fear and loathing of people with mental illness on the dignity of a human being. I can see just about every ill feeling and stereotype about people with mental illness in Mrs. Ngai’s “paratext”. Here are some:

That the problems of psychiatric patients and mentally ill people in general are not worthy of our attention (“hardly inviting”) and not worth reading about their life, not even if that patient is the (former?) feminist icon herself. “But not depression about feminism or politics.”

All of them are “unhappy people” 24/7 by nature of the illness (not maybe because the hospital staff walks all over their civil rights and dignity 24/7),

Psychiatric hospitals are disgusting (“hospital-blue”) because it houses ‘irrational people’, not because of what happens to them in there.

And the mother of all covert expression of fear and loathing of people with mental illness laid down in digital ink by a feminist:

anxious, unhappy-looking close-up of Firestone.”

Mrs. Ngai might as well have quoted Firestone directly from AS:

she looked like an escapee from a loony bin”. [The jump suit}

The real ‘paratext’ in “she looks anxious and unhappy“ (a purely emotional assesment), based on Mrs. Ngai attitude displayed in her post, is ‘she looks like a crazy woman and I’m afraid of her, I don’t wanna look at her’.

t’s not just the content of the stories in Airless Spaces, or their sense of simultaneous pastlessness and futurelessness that I find depressing.”

Is there a difference?

But one can’t blame only the intellectual feminists, young and old, for uncritically petrifying in history SF the human being as a the feminist icon whose only legacy is that at age 25 she wrote in the 70s the ultimate feminist theory book, Dialectic of Sex (DOS), and initiated the 2nd wave of feminism, while dismissing her last 20 years of life as barren of any intellectual or humane worth. There are also political forces concealed in plain view feeding that attitude.

One of the most effective weapons in the arsenal of the powers that be are those which can be deployed hidden in plain view; it explains the military obsession with ‘stealthiness’, e.g. stealth war planes and ‘invisible soldiers’. Fear and loathing of the mi is one of those weapons, just as the war on feminism has been a stealthy one all along too, masked  as ‘culture’. One could  argue that it has been so effective against feminism as to finally getting feminists to self-destroy, for there is no “explicit” difference between the religious fanatic misogynist’s attacks on SF and her work, and the attacks some  feminists are now perpetrating on her on account of her mental illness. The outcome is the same:  discrediting a feminist and her feminist ideas as mental illness, and slowly  caving in the movement by autophagia. DOS is not evidence of her ‘early’ mental illness, and AS is not the crazy rantings of a mentally ill former feminist icon.

When feminists with mental illness have the courage of raising the topic of mental illness they risk public shame and ridicule from both the misogynists and the intellectual feminists in their small intra-self-bashing circle, as is happening to SF.

I sometimes wonder if these feminists share also the same goals with the misogynists, because for the life of me I still can’t see how the feminists’s cause can be advanced by openly setting out to viciously demolishing their own ‘icon’ as a ‘pathetic mentally ill woman’. It makes me imagine that Mrs. Ngai has a photo of Donald Trump on her desk; I don’t know.

THIS POST IS ALL ABOUT YOU, NOT HER

So to finally answer the question above, I’m, as in Bob Dylan’s lyrics, the “complete unknown” woman/case manager to who Firestone dedicated her last book, Airless Spaces (AS). That fact alone allows me to talk with ‘some authority’ about the last 10-20 years of her life. But if you don’t buy that, I can talk about her thanks to my right of freedom of speech, the same one that allows some intellectual feminists to, um, how should I say it, trash her and AS

Bear in mind, though, that I’m not an intellectual, not in the elitist sense of the word – OK; I’m not an intellectual, of any kind. I’m sure that my basic level of ESL ‘gramar’ and poor composition skills tipped you off, didn’t it? Please, keep this in mind; I’m setting up a point for the ‘book dedication’ part.

In truth, this post is not a biography of any type about SF. If you want one, read AS (again), this time not as a female version of The Shining, but as her autobiography; I’m sure she wrote it with that in mind, including a chapter explaining how she thought her mental illness developed. But nooo, you can’t even see that in there because to you her life stopped to have any importance once you learned she had become mentally ill:

the book particularly discourages us from reading it as the story of Firestone, the Feminist.”

In fact, I’m writing this post in part because I dread imagining the type of bio the anti-feminists intellectual feminists will be writing about her life.

I’m not writing this post as a bio of Firestone because. not only I don’t have the intellectual skills  necessary for that, but also because I was not the only person involved in facilitating her temporary recovery, though I will be using some of my experience with her to make some points on the second part of this post.

So why am I writing this now, twenty years after the facts?

First, I recently noticed (online) an interest in the life and writing of Firestone, prompted undoubtedly, among other reasons, by the current national and global political conditions. As it turns out, Firestone’s political ideas are far from dated (she’s still dangerous). Second, I have also been reading online with profound consternation an implied judgment from some feminists that her last 20 years of life have no value to society, not worthy of being recorded and studied with impartiality as her earliest feminist material because, as the prejudice goes, people with mental illness can produce nothing of value for society: they are merely a scary burden to it; and that AS is neither a feminist nor a political book but a mere collection of “scary” (take notes, Stephen King) and depressing fictionalized stories about her experience with schizophrenia.

To change that type of prejudice and save Firestone’s whole life legacy, the facts of those 20 years of her life must be made public by those who have them. I recognize that Mrs.Ngai makes the point that she could find no information about Firestone’s life post DOS and that “How the narrator or characters became hospitalized to begin with, is a question Airless Spaces never asks us to ask,” (I don’t see why she couldn’t ask the question out of her own curiosity; well, I know the answer.)

“My surprise encounter with her name on the spine of Airless Spaces made me acutely aware of my ignorance.  What exactly happened, in the interval between 1970 and 1998, to Shulamith Firestone? “

That’s why the facts of those years must be made public: not being available facilitate these uncompassionate analysis of her life. Facilitate, not eliminate: even with the facts these feminists will continue writing in the masculine style: totally emotionally detached from the humanity of their ‘objects’ and without an ounce of compassion for the suffering of women, particularly feminist women who are not engaged in useless discussions about feminist theories.

Who has those facts, then? Mainly her family, her friends in and around her support group, and I as the ICM (intensive case manager) of Visiting Nurse Services (VNS) who enrolled her in the program. And why haven’t these people written about this part of SF’s life yet? Again, due to my poor composition skills you will have to read the answer to this question in the second part. First, I will be discussing in this post my ‘informed’ (!) opinion about:

  1. The political reasons why SF’s last years are being dismissed by some feminist as of no value to their feminist imperative.
  2. That some intellectual feminists’ misreading of ‘AS’ as the irrational schizophrenic rantings of a ‘has been-feminist icon‘ is clearly not a matter of lack of literature skills, but betray unexamined attitudes of fear and loathing of people with mental illness.
  3. That to correct this sorry state of affair – the denigration of SF’s whole life and legacy by feminists because of her mental illness – the people who were with her need to tell their experience for the record. I have lost contact with them; my hope is that somehow they bump into this post and consider meeting as a group to tell the story of SF’s dignified struggle with m.i.

With all due respect to Susan Faludi, her compassionate article after Firestone’s passing, for which she interviewed all of us who were with her the last 10 years of her life, should not be the last words from us. We all refused to discuss with Mrs. Faludi details of Firestone’s illness. Maybe she should be the professional writer to put our collective experience in an article for reference to future writers of SF bio. By now, 20 years after the emotional shock of her passing, we should know how to tell her story and how is her life inspirational without getting into lurid details of symptoms and delusions.

THE ROOT OF FEAR AND LOATHING OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

I said at the beginning of this post that one can’t blame the feminist intellectuals for dismissing SF last 20 years of life as the ‘useless’ years of SF the mentally ill.

The culprit for this sorry state of affairs is humanity’s perennial fear and prejudice about people with m.i. (By prejudice here I mean ignorance, but not in bookish sense; ignorance as in lack of understanding of how we contribute to the suffering of other human beings with our unexamined emotions, deeds -of speech and body – and beliefs.)

Those two are as potent today in this brand new millennium as they were two hundred years ago. They exist today, undisturbed and unquestioned, in the mind of most intellectuals, be it feminists or  intellectuals in every field of studies –men and women; in those themselves suffering the symptoms of mental illness and in the minds of their supportive friends and families; even in the minds of mental health practitioners and service providers.

Not even today’s ultra-modern science and psychiatry have been able to make a dent in our collective and personal fear and loathing of  the m.i. This is not only because they are intent on nourishing those traits for political and monetary gains, but because ingrained human fear and loathing of mentally ill people are impermeable to science in many people.

This fear and loathing is the outcome of plain fear and prejudice: the ineradicable hallmark of the human condition, across the political spectrum from extreme right to extreme left and everything in between, in men as in women. They are the emotion which, left unchecked, becomes a weapon against humanity. For example, fear and prejudice are the indispensable emotions which greedy men in power successfully manipulate with propaganda in order to convince the rest of a reluctant humanity to accept fighting against each other in these men’s wars for profit, since WWI (the war that ended all peace) up to our current ‘war on terrorism’.

What is the impact of these traits in our society?

It is common knowledge that these two traits, when unexamined or challenged, have negative ethical and moral consequences that affect us all at both the personal and social levels. As they relate to people with mental illness, social expressions of fear and prejudices about them (manipulated or not by the NRA, e.g.) are powerful psychological triggers of deep seated feelings of shame in the minds, not only of the victims of these expressions, but in their families and friends as well, which of course may lead to feelings of guilt for harboring those feelings.

Speaking of the NRA, we have seen how they use the media to manipulate public fear of the mentally ill to sell guns and to get political support to pass laws that blame the mentally ill for all mass murders committed with weapons –whether by people with m.i or not – so as to deflect any responsibility away from the CEOs of the arms manufacturing industry. Their propaganda is crystal clear: buy guns because mentally ill people are a fearful and dangerous bunch whom we must be legally free to kill in self-defense.

On the other hand, this fear and loathing can defeat the moral value to society of a healthy sense of shame and regret, which is to refrain from acting with cruelty and disregard to the well-being of others out of personal fear of being rejected by one’s peer.

There is no limit to the evil that can be inflicted on others when one lacks the ability to feel shame and regret for one’s own acts of cruelty, especially if it can be justified as necessary. We’ve seen this with American psychiatrists feeling proud of torturing mentally ill children in Willowbrook in the name of ‘science’, and politicians and ‘men of science’ (pharma, i.e.) bestowing awards on these psychiatrists for cruelty perpetrated on behalf of science. It was all done on account of social fear and prejudice of people with mental illness: the doctors, themselves morally numb to the atrocities they were committing, convinced the public for a long while that it was done to protect both the children and society, and as ‘research to cure the illness’.

The difference between the actions of these American doctors and those of Dr. Mengele and Hitler’s ‘final solution’ to the problem of mental illness -proudly and yet covertly gassing those poor souls out of ‘necessity’, to keep the white race pure – is really tiny: only the methods changed. The immoral arguments were the same, science to protect you from the mentally ill, i.e.

But is it still going on?

You bet your derriere it is.

Modern treatment of Dystonia

 

Evolution through time of western methods for treating mental illness. Not much has change, has it?

The only thing that has changed is the wording in the contract that the family of the mentally ill signs consenting to invasive ‘neuroscience’ research of the mind and mental illness on their child: it’s not the ice pick anymore; it’s more like GOD in a white coat in the lab with new millennium type of cutlery.

In its seemingly tamer form, we see today in the public ‘critique’ of some intellectual feminists the impact of unchecked free-wheeling shamelessness in justifying contempt for people with mental illness. For example, Mrs. Ngai can justify her own “inability to understand, relate or feel compassion for them not perhaps as a result of her own unexamined personal prejudices but as a natural and legitimate response to these people’s ‘irrational’ behaviors.

it compels a strangely anti-empathetic empathy, an empathy with its explicitly anti-empathetic affect.

Now that’s spinning. The idea that Firestone set out to write her story with the intention of making you feel “anti-empathic” and ’empathic’ at the same time is one that only a feminist who set out to analysis AS as The Shining could come up with. It is “strangely” indeed; it is irrational thinking on the part of Mrs. Ngai.

This shamelessness in blaming the victim of our prejudices in turn makes us callous and unsympathetic towards their plight in the hands of the state psychiatric system, accepting the state’s false justifications for the inhumane and barbaric treatment of people diagnosed as m.i we have seen through history, and even today. We then feel compelled to cover up their condition to hide our shame or, like in Nazi Germany, we look to other side when the atrocities are being committed.

And that’s how we have ended up today hiding SF’s last 20 years of life, the years of her courageous and dignified struggle with m.i. and the mental health system. Of that I am in part to be blamed. 

THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL’ : IS IT TRUE ANY LONGER?

If the personal is political – the feminists’ favorite slogan – then it should stand to logic that living with mental illness is political. After all, this particular illness is not like, let’s say, diabetes; e.g. no one is afraid of a diabetic who doesn’t take his meds, and no diabetic person gets their civil liberties routinely trampled by the government when they get ‘symptomatic’.

And for crying out loud, are young feminists unaware that throughout history women who refused to stay in the kitchen were punished by labeling them mentally ill, and then lobotomized in the mid-1900s?  Do yourselves a favor: if you haven’t done it yet, please, don’t read “scary” AS as entertainment, watch the 1982 movie “Frances”.  Chances are you will miss the in-your-face politics and feminism in it too, but at least you will lay off of Firestone.

 

Movie trivia: in ‘V for Vendetta’, the character ‘Valerie’ is an homage to Frances Farmer.

Feminists are concerned with the connection between politics and the personal, yet they have persistently failed to make that connection in their reading of AS. Firestone made the connection; it’s the raison d’être of Airless Spaces precisely because the relation between the state’s routine daily trampling of one’s personal liberty and dignity  is seldom as explicit as in life in a state’s psych ward. Same with the politics of women’s oppression, it is not ‘explicit’; it is cloaked as ‘culture’, at least in the USA.

Why are feminists failing to see a ‘feminist’s dignity’ in AS?

Alas, it’s not because of their unexamined prejudices towards people with mi; it must be because she failed to “explicitly” make the connection for them by, for instance, entitling the book ‘feminists and psychiatry’ or put the word ‘feminism in the book spine. It is as if for feminists intellectuals a woman’s suffering and abuse is of no importance if she is a mental patient, especially if that woman is a feminists who dared become mentally ill and write  a book about it.

I don’t consider it preposterous to read AS as Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground, with the added bonus of the author observing herself and reporting her own actions and thoughts.

There is no passive SF in AS. Read The jump suit again, this time not as a female version of The Shining, and consider using a writing style different from men’s. Mrs. Ngai only focus in her reading of AS was ‘did it help the feminist cause?’

“it could be argued that Airless Spaces shouldn’t be read as a tragic allegory of the stalling or historical foreclosure of the radical feminist project.”

She missed the human aspect of AS.

Next week I will continue with a discussion of how Shulamith Firestone’s life is inspirational.

‘What Happened’: On feminism and the coup against the people of the USA

I watched Rachel Maddow’s interview of Hillary Clinton last Tuesday who was promoting her new book, a ‘part 2’ in paperback of last year’s ‘What Happened’, with the same title. The part of the interview that caught my attention the most was Hillary’s discussion about Putin’s continued meddling in our national politics and his attacks on her during the 2016 elections, which she discusses extensively in her new book.

Hillary asked, and I’m paraphrasing, If Putin wanted to punish her for her supposedly ‘anti- Putin’ actions as Secretary of State by blocking her path to the presidency, and if he anticipated, before the elections, that her presidency would be an “obstacle” to whatever his political goals were at the time, why, then, after having succeeded in removing said ‘obstacle’, is he still persistently attacking our political system and influencing our national political discourse? After all, he got what he and his billionaire supporters wanted:  Donald Trump, overwhelmingly rejected by popular vote, in the presidency.

Mrs. Clinton suggested that Putin’s attacks on her were neither just personal nor solely directed at her. She said that Putin is “paranoid” about any mass movement near his borders seeking political reforms and democracy (e.g. the LGBTQ and women’s movements). I propose to you, as I’m doing since the primaries  on this blog, that it was precisely that irrational fear of democratic movements what had, not only Putin, but the rest of the US and global oligarchs in a state of panic during the US presidential elections.

The mantra used by the American ‘Marxists’ during the elections (discussed on this blog) that Hillary Clinton hated Russia and was, consequently, an obstacle to ‘peace with Russia’, was a propaganda ploy devised by Putin and handed to them to disseminate among Bernies (proved by emails from Russia to Manafort). Bernies  believed the ploy and went on to vilify Hillary in the eyes of progressives supporting her. Is not for nothing that Putin was head of the KGB; his propaganda skills worked so well with Bernies that they still believe the myth of Hillary ‘the witch’ and Trump the ‘pro peace and anti-globlalism’ candidate. Heck, they might want to re-elect him.

The famous and mysterious “voters’ anger” (for a long time the mainstream media denied understanding what they were ‘angry’ about) at the globalist oligarchs manifested in the US Democratic Party as a solid united front of people of color, women, workers, immigrants (legal and illegal), LGBTQ, Muslims and many other oppressed groups. They were all behind Hillary Clinton, even some who didn’t like her.  The oligarchs of the world, of Russia, the U.S.A, China, Europe…were not pleased with the vision of the future flashing in front of their mind’s eye from all these expressions of solidarity among their nations’ oppressed groups.

Seeing these voters in the US behind a woman, nay, a feminist woman, was an intolerable sight indeed for the ruling male oligarchs. That’s why, as Hillary mentioned in the interview, more money was spend attacking her (over $30 millions) than on any other candidate running for president ever.

Politics is politics and I will not claim that Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State were all ‘kosher’. But at the same time she did stand for the interests of women and  oppressed group here and internationally.  I’m sure you can see why the same oligarchs that supported her as Secretary of State were not going to support her candidacy for president. Those are two different jobs. Running for president on a platform giving women more power and workers better salaries is not the oligarchs’  idea of a ‘good president’.

Case in point: By now the American public is aware that Putin didn’t act alone, that he joined, coordinated and ultimately received help from many U.S. entities. Among them were, and still are, the GOP, the NRA, the mainstream media (NYT and WaPo included), the pseudo-Marxists and the alt-right media. (Recall the infamous photo of Putin seating with Green Party’s Jill Stein and GOP senators). What interests could link this disparate group of political agents, particularly the ultra anti-anything-that-smells-like-socialism GOP and the NRA, to Putin?

It was the perfect political storm.

Ask yourself, what is it that our billionaire (and recently crowned as trillionaires) oligarchs care for the most on this planet? What terrifies them and their paid GOP servants the most, to the point of giving them nightmares?

Answer: What they have, and losing it.

First, they care for, no, actually, their lives revolve around investing the least amount of money on their workers and other incidentally necessary human beings (salaries and health insurance) and reaping insane profits from them and the consumers. Secondly, they care immensely for their power: political-economic-and male. (Male power, power over women, i.e., is a universal goal of just about every male.)

The two things that TERRIFY them the most are the opposite of those things they care for the most. They fear losing their power over women and workers (though they are more terrified of powerful women),  which would make them lose their ability to crunch humanity and, consequently, stop them from deriving their hugely immorally acquired profits.

And thus we arrive at the answer to ‘What Happened?’.

There was, and still is, a global anger at the globalist oligarchs. In the USA, the working class as such has become increasingly powerless, as shown by them having lost their union organizing powers (due to labor leaders’ corruption, political attacks from the oligarchy, and the almost total disappearance of the leftist movement since, at least, the 1980s). Meanwhile, the so-called identity issues have become more prominent, particularly the women’s issues. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016 automatically put feminism in the ballot, both because she is a woman and because she openly ran as a feminist.

Make no mistake about it: Feminism was in the ballot this past 2016 presidential elections. In my view, it was the most important issue, the defining issue in the elections and the least mentioned or examined after the elections. It is the one issue which the members of the exclusive club of male oligarchs, from Putin to Trump and every Wall Street and Silicon Valley CEO, and trillionaires like Jeff Bezos are still not prepare to accept: a woman, and on top of that a feminist, supported by women (self-identified as feminists or not), as president running their male lives and making decisions about their sacrosanct business practices privileges. (What type of feminism Clinton represented is not in discussion in this post.)

The male oligarchs  perceived that their absolute male power and privileges were being threatened by ‘feminists’. I remember reading a tweet from Michael Moore saying, under the assumption that Hillary’s victory was assured,

“guys, let’s admit it: 10 thousand years of male dominance over women is coming to an end” (I paraphrased.)

He was pleased about that.

How else do you explain the misogynistic coverage of Clinton in the media, even by those who ‘endorsed’ her? Look, no owner of big corporation in his right mind would have come out openly supporting Trump, a know amoral entity, during the elections. That explains, in part, how the WaPo, e.g.,, which ‘endorsed’ her,  spend 24/7 negative coverage of Clinton and the ’email’ ‘crimes’ up to November 9. Then they stopped talking about her ‘crimes’, one day to the other.

That’s also why only now we are finding out that the support for Trump was extensive, across party lines, from the extreme left supporting Putin to the extreme right also supporting him, and mostly by elitist men; but hidden from the public in plain view.

It was a magnificently globally crafted and implemented soft coup d’etate ON THE PEOPLE of the USA during and after the 2016 elections.

Hillary Clinton is right: Ultimately it was not about her, but about us, the people united against ‘strong men’ in power.

Women continue to be today the only revolutionary force capable of making significant changes to the system. Their struggle touches every aspect of our humanity: From cultural and gender issues, to labor and search for political power against the oligarchs. They just need to realize the awesome power they have in their hands.

The labor and ‘leftist’ movement, they are no more. The few zombie ‘Marxist leftists’ out there are beckoning you to follow them and leave the ‘identity politics, the politics of fighting the oppression of women and all people, behind.

Follow the pseudo-Marxist leftists at your own risk.

Me, I’m done with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew Levine -Did he just follow Trump into the GOP?

Sometimes it is amusing to watch how some people, in trying to come to grip with their mistakes but lacking the courage to admit to them, get all bent into a pretzel to prove they were actually right.

That seems to be the case with Andrew Levine, of Counter Punch online magazine, in his latest pro-Trump-apology propaganda article “Had Hillary Won: What Now?”. It starts as an apparent effort at admitting a mistake for attacking Hillary Clinton during the elections, but ends as a full-blown support for Trump and an invitation to join the GOP. Seriously!!

Twice in the article Andrew invites you to be thankful (yes, thankful) that Trump was, basically, imposed on the voters by the ‘oligarchy’, and all through it he tries to convince you that, under Trump, the GOP is not a fascist party, that the Democratic party is the fascist one. He actually makes the case for switching to the GOP as an alternative to the “corrupt” Democratic Party; maybe he has already switched, who knows. Then, he ends his article the way he intended to start it: He concludes that we should be grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president and Trump is:

Even so, there is some reason to be grateful that she did not. [win, i.e.]

All this tells me that there may be another explanation for Mr. Levin’s Trump-apology article apart from an act of remorse, of ‘guilty feelings’ for his unrelenting attacks on Clinton. It may be just another piece from the Putin troll farm (propaganda) coming to the rescue of Trump in time when the Muller investigation is casting an ominous light on him with the indictment of 13 Russians. I think Andrew’s article fulfills this second explanation, and I will discuss his statements proving this below.

For Andrew, as for the zombie-leftists (he finally admits that there is no ‘leftist movement’) it is only Putin that matters. So here he goes again telling you that, for the love of God, understand that if Trump is in love with Putin (because of the millions of dollars in business with him, not because Trump is pro-peace) you must come to love Trump also.

That is the mark of the Putin troll farm, their love for Putin. All pseudo-leftists show it in their defense of Trump. They may receive monetary compensation for it, or do it for free, just for the love of Putin. We’ll never know which applies to Andrew Levine.

Once, right after the elections, Mr. Levine came this close to admitting that his and his magazine constant attacks on Hillary Clinton during the elections may have contributed to the appointment of racist/misogynist/racketeering/fascist Trump to the presidency. He must have felt a pang of guilty feelings, that’s for sure, for no self-respecting Marxist in his/her right mind would have campaigned for Trump, directly or indirectly, no matter who was running on the democratic side. If Mr. Levine lacks the political education to see that Trump is a 100% corrupt, amoral, anti-everything that is even mildly humane, let alone anti Mr. Levine’s ‘beloved’ working class, then he should stop representing himself as a leftist. I don’t believe he is a ‘leftist’. If he is one, he is a traitor to the working class. Any one who is glad that Trump is the president is a traitor to the working class.

Troll farm propaganda #1: Don’t mourn for Hillary, celebrate Trump

Here is Andrew again, in the anniversary of Trump’s first year of giving in simony this nation to the white-male billionaires, telling you that there’s no need to feel bad about having your democratically elected candidate supplanted by an amoral gangster. (Are there moral gangsters? The Godfather had some morals: don’t sell drugs to children. But that’s a movie and I’m digressing.).

That’s why he wrote this article. It’s a psychological propaganda attack on you to get you to accept Trump despite the political debacle this nation is experiencing at his expense. The technique is by reminding you how ‘evil Hillary and the Democratic Party are’, by feeding you the same emotional arguments that worked so well in creating this public image of Hillary Clinton as a monster. Andrew rehashes all the usual crimes and depiction of Hillary as a “beast” used during the elections in the article. It’s the Putin weapon reloading and discharging.

The above explains why the article starts like this:

“Suppose the polls had been right; suppose that what practically everybody believed would happen actually did happen.”

Instead of Marxism 100, Mr. Levin resorts to tasseomancy to explain why Trump is better than Clinton for the nation.  Mr. Levine is reading the tea leaves for you, he knows for a fact that, had the candidate with the overwhelming, historical majority of votes be in the presidency now…

Then Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would be president of the United States, but the Senate, probably, and the House of Representatives, certainly, would have remained under Republican control.

So, his line of thinking is ‘Don’t feel bad, even if we pseudo-leftist screwed up by attacking her instead of attacking Trump, she would have still lost Congress.’  Right; he knows that for sure because he is a professional tassologist, not a Marxist.

He can see in his tea leaves what a Clinton administration would have looked like also:

had Hillary won, we would now have pretty much what we had when Barack Obama was president…

Funny thing here is that Mr. Levin was absent during the Obama administration from the leftist movement, he was supporting him, but now he is casting blame for the demise of the leftist movement on Obama.

So, again, Andrew goes on rehashing all the usual attacks on Clinton, saying that she would have been ‘more of Obama’.

Troll farm propaganda #2: ‘OK. We were wrong but will never admit to it’.

This is the thing: You can’t justify the unjustifiable, even If you are Mr. Levin or any other pseudo-leftists. Justifying support for Trump is possible only if you are like Trump. And so Andrew finds himself having to grant, in order to attack her later, nonetheless, that something good must have come out from a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you followed Andrew’s, Counter Punch magazine, and all the other zombie-leftists online blogs attacks on Hillary, like I did, this next statement by him is bound to have your head spinning in a rage.

He says that, had Hillary be the president now, some good would have come from her:

…the likelihood that the United States would blunder into a nuclear Armageddon would now be significantly less. [with Hillary, i.e.]

Throughout the elections Andrew’s and the pseudo-leftists main attack point on Hillary was that she is a warmonger.  He and the pseudo-leftists invited you to not vote for Clinton because she is a “warmonger beast” intending, purposely and for her beastly pleasure (literally) to cause “a WWIII”; that, because of Trump’s love of Putin, he was the peace candidate. I called the attention in my blog to this propaganda, you can search it.  It’s all there, including Susan Sarandon’s mind blogging statement that “Trump is less dangerous than Hillary”.

Troll farm propaganda #3: “We are a lot better off with Trump”

Look, if you have children reading this post, please, send them to their room; don’t let them see Andrew’s obscene argument in defense of Trump.

 It grieves me to say anything good about Donald Trump, but, to his credit, he did force Republicans onto a less unreasonable track…

Do I really have to spell to you the meaning of that statement? I’m going to choose not to do it. You just focus on the words “credit” and Republicans “in a less unreasonable track”. You will get there on your own.

What could possibly make a professional political ‘leftist’ thinker utter such an egregiously incorrect and offensive claim? Not even Republicans themselves dare to soil themselves by claiming that Trump has made them more reasonable. What could be so important to make Mr. Levine crap his reputation as an ‘intellectual leftists’ with such a sorry comment?

Answer: Putin, of course.

Trump has turned the GOP into the peace party, he says:

 …not in general, but towards Russia, a country with a nuclear arsenal so formidable that only maniacs would want to mess with it unnecessarily.

Thank God for the GOP for they are the peace party that will prevent a nuclear war with Russia because they have Trump’s man-crush on Putin to protect us.

Troll farm propaganda #4: “The GOP is not a fascist party.” Join them.

You can bring the kids back now. This will help them recognize propaganda in the future.

Andrew tells us that the Republican party is not a fascist party anymore, the implication being that they are not as dangerous, and that, when compared to the “corrupt” DNC, which he does ad nauseam,  well, they may be a better alternative for your interests as a (white) working class/middle class man.

And so, Reagan-style friendly fascism has largely disappeared from the Republican fold.”

Wow. And to think that I thought they were more fascist today under Trump. Thank you, Andrew for showing me how wrong I’ve been in insulting that progressing party.

Mr. Levine gives you a history class about the GOP, how that party under Reagan was a full-fledged fascist party, but not anymore under comrade Trump.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is the devil incarnate.

Troll farm propaganda #5: Save the white working men from the evil party, the Democratic party, i.e.

Mr. Levin faithfully brandishes GOP’s and Trump’s racist arguments in favor of white men with pseudo-leftist language.

He describes the political crimes, subterfuges of the Democratic Party, all with ‘fascist’ roots. One of the biggest crimes of Hillary and the democratic party is their defense of people of color. As the GOP and Trump said, Andrew says that the dems “abandoned” the white working class, meaning the deplorables who supported Trump. That alone is enough to run out of the dem party into the GOP. You have to understand, the GOP is not fascist any more. They will stand for your rights as people of color, women, above all as workers. Do you really believe that the GOP and Trump cares about people of color, other than white color? Do you?!

This reminds me when, during the primaries, Levin et al pseudo-leftists advocated at Counter Punch for progressives to go to Trump’s rallies and pick up  a physical fight with his supporters, the same white working class he is standing for here. That’s dishonesty and manipulation of emotions, then and now.

Conclusion: Women are the hope for the future, but not really.

Mr. Levine may pretend to cover up his pro-Trump-GOP tracks by using some name calling on Trump, but the fact remains that he has created a masterful piece of propaganda, one that actually tells you that both the GOP and Trump are good for you.

The artful part of it is in the claiming that having Trump will automatically produce a ‘leftist movement’ against him. The problem is this: Mr. Levin clearly is pro-Trump, so every action by anyone against Trump is seen by Andrew as an attack on Putin and on his white supporters. And so him and the pseudo-leftists have consistently attacked the women’s resistance on account of them being anti-Trump. Let alone the fact that, as Andrew himself just admitted in the article, there is no leftist movement in the USA. That’s why they are a zombie-leftists: they are dead and and still roaming around the living trying to suck the blood out of us from their fancy leftists’ websites traps.

He knows there is no leftist movement alive to guide Levine’s beloved working class against the billionaires takeover of our nation. He knows it. So why  did he tell you during the elections that better vote for Trump than for “crooked Hillary” because Trump would ‘spark’ the revolution? He was doing Putin’s work to elect Trump. That’s why.

The zombie-leftists were absent during the Obama administration, this Andrew admits. But they were dead long before Obama, among other reasons because the workers can see that the professional left has left them behind long ago.

Today, Andrew attacks women, the only ones who have raised to the challenge against all that Trump represents. True, they are disorganized, but they are there, waiting for the right  bearers of ‘socialist’ ideology to help them focus their energy. Don’t expect that from Andrew or any other of the zombie-leftists.

At first, when the women organized the first Women’s March, the zombie-leftist, including him, ignored them, then started to attack them for being ‘women-centered’. Today it is obvious that it is the women the one at the forefront against this misadministration, and Andrew had to admit it:

It started with the Women’s March, immediately after Inauguration Day, and has been growing ever since; with women – black, brown, and white – leading the surge.

But he can’t control his misogyny. At the beginning of the article he called the women’s resistance a “sparking anodyne “resistance,”. It had to be “anodyne” because women issues are not important enough, not to the zombie-leftists. The leftists have always been misogynists, not all, but as a movement. The oppression of women is not important, girls. Don’t bother your male leftists with your problems.

Look, no one is saying that the democratic party is the socialist party or that it is controlled by the billionaire CEOs. But to say that the GOP is “less fascist” than the dems and that Trump is an opportunity for peace, simply shows the dishonesty of a man that claims to stand for the working class but is a fascist at heart.

The pseudo-leftists should have join the dems and force a coalition of sorts with the owners of the party, and take from there. No one can expect any ‘revolution’ in these political conditions. There is no space for a revolution since 1945. But the intellectual leftists have capitulated and sold their soul to Trump.

So women are a distraction, there’s no leftist movement; what are we to do now?

Follow  Andrew Levine into the Trump party, for the love of Putin!

On Hillary Clinton’s hair DNA sequence as the barometer of freedom of speech

Hillary Clinton has become everything to us.

I wholeheartedly supported her during the elections, but I’m nobody’s “hardcore follower”. Every leader of every era has had hardcore followers, the type that accept them no matter what. I meant that opening line with another meaning.

This is not about her per se, though; it’s about that tenuous concept of ‘freedom of speech’. Is about how a man’s business ‘practice’, figuring out DNA sequence to create pharmaceutical products, became not only his downfall, but also the test for the limits of freedom of speech.

And yet! Hillary Clinton has actually become ‘everything to us’. Every time she shows her face in public there’s mass convulsion. She is the perennial she-devil that half the nation needed to block from access to the most powerful political seat in the world because they were sure she was intent on seeking the presidency to, in her evil way of thinking, destroy the world (for fun, mind you) by causing the third World War. That’s worse than being a ‘bitch’. That’s a witch.

Martin Shkreli felt compelled out of his arduous business of making life-saving drugs by her merely showing her face in public…to sell some books.

Possible humane background for Martin Shkreli need for Clinton’s DNA sequencing

Since distant times, the witches’ own hair have been used by heroes to paralyze them. Heroes of  very far away times, well, of mythology, used to cross the planet trying to pull a lock of hair from a witch’s head to make a potion with which to kill her, or to cut her head off, which always proved easier to do. Medusa comes to mind. Medusa, a man-eater. That’s the danger these witches pose to ‘mankind’.

Fast forward to the most modern and advanced millennium in (organized) human history: the 21 first’s.

Medusa, er, Clinton is the embodiment of that mythological man-eater. And Martin Shkreli is the (anti) hero in search of Clinton’s head. Except that he doesn’t carry a sword but a sack of money to pay, as he advertised on FB, any fool who dares grab her by the (head) hair and bring him the evidence of success. He is more like SALOME in that respect, isn’t he?

He can afford to pay $5 grands per hair strand because he is in the pharma business of making people pay with their blood for one vial of life-saving medication. He is a blood-sucker, i.e., a (male) vampire going after a witch. That’s rich, isn’t? He wanted to create a modern potion with her hair, figuring her DNA sequence to make the ‘antidote’ to kill her. Literally.

Well, the case is that he is now, supposedly, in a Maximum security prison for “solicitation to assault in exchange for money that is not protected by the First Amendment,” the judge said. To which Shkreli’s lawyer responded:

“Indeed, in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm,” Brafman wrote. “There is a difference, however, between comments that are intended to threaten or harass and comments — albeit offensive ones — that are intended as political satire or strained humor.”

This is where my opinion on the issue starts.

The discussion of the political issue of Freedom of speech has become as mindbogglingly ridiculous as those laws passed mostly in the western states of the US prohibiting the collection of rain water, even the rain falling on a citizen’s house roof.

In this latest case of ridiculously mind boggling use of freedom of speech it is MONEY the trigger for the dispute. Had Shkreli just asked for a few strands of Mrs. Clinton’s hair, he would still be a free vampire, um, man, but his crime was in offering monetary payment, in engaging in a business transaction, the type that has made him a billionaire, to wit, figuring out “DNA sequence” of things that would make him richer beyond our imagination. He claims now that it was all just in jest.

He got himself a direct ‘go to jail’ for offering payment, not for the many instances of abuse of freedom of speech in which he has engaged, mostly against women.

His lawyer has a point when he says that “in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm”. I propose that this satirizing of dissent is a sign of the times, a sign of the political powerlessness of the citizens of this nation.

There has been so many instances of clear abuse of freedom of speech in the past years sanctioned by the SCOTUS and by politicians that We The People are left only with “satire” to fight it off. A corporation is a person. Mind boggling, isn’t it?

Up to the last 20 years of the last century most of us  had a good idea of what abuse of freedom of speech meant, we could hear it and read it when expressed. After 9/11 that clarity has become a fog. But more than anything it is globalism which has muddled our minds with its insistence in conflating freedom of speech and freedom of doing business.

Doing business requires advertising the products created through advertisement, and the advertisement industry has  desensitized the public to their playful use of freedom of speech to sell the business’ ware with ads portraying ‘bad’ as cool. Shkreli himself prided, not anymore, on being that bad boy of social media.

We live in a world that is politically and economically disturbed. Billionaires feel that they are exempt from moral rules, just as the feudal lords of the 1800s saw themselves. Bad is good, good is bad. War is good, peace is a sign of weakness, according to the elite’s bible. And freedom of speech will continue to be mediated by how much freedom we need to take from corporations to be able  to live in a moral social agreement.

The limits of freedom of speech will be tested by how far the likes of billionaires like Shkreli can push immorality,  not by ‘DNA testing’.

That is farther down the line.

 

 

 

Amy Goodman clears WaPo and MSM reputation as purveyors of fake news

[Attention, grammar police: you need a warrant to enter this post.]

This article at Democracy Now illustrates how the media is covering all the bases, going everywhere to clear its reputation as purveyor of fake news after the beating it got from the public for demonstrating during this presidential election cycle that they are nothing but publishers of propaganda. Amy Goodman is working with them to save the credibility of the corrupt media by attacking Trump for ‘attacking’ the “lying media”.

Amy Goodman,  who has suffered in her own skin the media barons and the government punishing ‘alternative’ journalists, seems to have been coerced into bending over to defend the Bezos and Murdoch and Slim’s barons of the media.

Instead of using the opportunity to denounce the media, she joins in the effort to cleans their corrupted souls. You don’t have to agree with Trump, just use his own propaganda to show the truth about the media. But that’s asking too much from the zombie left.

Amy Goodman interviews Robert Reich, who is thoroughly offended by Trump’s cojones to call the WaPo and the media purveyors of propaganda. She tells us who Reich is:

“Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. Reich, who now teaches at University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of Donald Trump’s most vocal critics. He recently wrote a piece headlined “Trump’s Seven Techniques to Control the Media.”

I read the article happily anticipating Amy engaging in a powerful indictment of the ‘presstitute’ media, but not such luck. Au contraire, I got another heartburn by reading how the pseudo-leftist media is a tool of the big media conglomerate. Prove me wrong.

I’m giving you this quote from the article, and warn you not to look for Amy correcting this guy’ statements, for you won’t find any corrections:

that is designed to undermine the credibility, in the public’s mind, of anything that The Washington Post might publish. It is an absurd allegation. There is no reason to believe that the Post‘s reporting turns upon Jeff Bezos’s concern about Amazon and any antitrust issues. But, you see, by creating this kind of conspiracy theory or this kind of paranoid notion about the press and planting it in the public’s mind, the public, or at least a portion of the public, is led to think that anything that The Washington Post, or another paper whose credibility the president-elect tries to undermine, says is [not] justified or is [not] true. And again, that is terribly dangerous in a democracy.

How dare ANYONE undermine the credibility of our media? Reich went to Amy to help him protect the crashing credibility of our media conglomerate.

How dare ANYONE question the credibility of our media, the same one that lied to the public on behalf of Bush and Cheney to “plant in the public’s mind” the idea that we had to invade Iraq because of the WMD?

And finally, how dare ANYONE question the credibility of the media that gave us Trump by engaging in the practice of character assassination against Hillary Clinton and the 24/7 coverage of the fictitious emails scandal that caused a significant part of the public who trust the WaPo and the NYT to not vote for her, costing her the presidency?

As I commented in my previous posts, that coverage of the emails was tantamount to a premature coup d’etat. They were getting the bed ready to have Hillary Clinton impeached for the emails had she won the elections. But the FBI jumped the gun, and they got her before she set foot on the White House.

But don’t expect Amy Goodman to mention any of this. She agrees with Reich that Trump is ‘vilifying’ poor Bezos and the media.

There is no discussion in the article  about the idea that the owners of our media conglomerate, elitist billionaires themselves, have good reasons to lie to the public, mainly to protect their class interests  from the ‘deplorable masses’, the ‘angry voters’ who are threatening to put their heads in a pitchfork.

There is no discussion either of how Trump is playing a game for the deplorables, pretending to hate the media, just as he pretended to hate the globalists but is filling his cabinet with the biggest and most corrupt of them. Trump may be lying, but he is not lying about the media as propagandists; he knows them because he uses them for propaganda.

Those who know the media shouldn’t be attacking him for ‘attacking’ the media. Use the opportunity to unmask the media, not to protect its corrupted soul.

Maybe my post about the theatricals between Trump and the NYT pretending to be at war can help you read between the lines when he ‘attacks’ the ‘lying media’.

MSM (Fake News) and Trump: The Truth About Their Secret Meetings

Jeff Bezos (WaPo) Covering Up for their partners in the 2016 election coup

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post; nothing of political weight can be printed without his approval. That’s a fact, and inability to recognize it or willingness to ignore it is the result of the public having been trained to not question the intentions behind the information the owners of the media conglomerate feed them daily.

Under the guise of ‘journalism’, The WaPo published today Sari Horwitz’ article The attorney general could have ordered FBI Director James Comey not to send his bombshell letter on Clinton emails. Here’s why she didn’t. It’s about covering up what amounts to a premature coup d’etat, not only against Hillary Clinton, but against the people of this nation, by the FBI, the Department of Justice and those who are yet to be uncovered.

It bears mentioning that Horwitz, a WaPo award-winning journalist, was found guilty by the WaPo of plagiarism in 2011.

plagiarims

Her article today is nothing but opinion passing as information. Its goal is to exonerate FBI Director James Comey in the public’s eyes for a behavior that was, without a doubt, politically motivated. The public knows it was, Bezos and Murdoch and Carlos Slim know it too; they often stated, after him releasing the now infamous emails letter to Congress, that Comey “must have known the repercussions of his actions”.

That’s why Comey is protected by a wall of media articles exonerating and casting him as a ‘well intentioned’ ‘worker’. If it is found that he acted out to influence the outcome of the elections, it would implicate many more people in what amounts, again, to a premature coup d’etat. For, remember, he is not just any ‘worker’, he is the director of the FBI. And we all know the first image the word FBI conjures in our minds is the opposite of political honesty.

One example of stealthy opinion passing as fact to exculpate Comey and the Justice Department:

But Comey and Lynch repeatedly underestimated how much their actions would reverberate in a closely contested presidential race.

How did Horwitz arrive at the conclusion that these two highly intelligent politicized bureaucrats “underestimated” their actions, and not that their actions were politically motivated? It seems an innocuous assertion from her part, and many readers would not take notice of the opinion being fed as fact. That’s the problem: it is not an innocuous assertion. It was written to manipulate public opinion about the players’ intentions in this   must horrific case of collusion between the media owners spewing their propaganda and the cover up of the political crime.

Horwitz said the following as if agreeing with Comey, never questioning whether the director’s present or past behaviors  confirm or put in doubt his self-perception

Into that vacuum stepped Comey, an FBI director who prides himself on having a finely tuned moral compass that allows him to rise above politics.

Comey’s sense of obligation to Congress was the key factor driving his decision.

When journalists and media editors want to cast blame on any one, politician or not, whether deserved or not, they don’t go pussy footing around it: They charge the person with the crime and repeat their verdict enough times as to making it become  a fact. And when they want to exculpate some one, they tend to succeed. This is the verdict in favor of the Director of the FBI:

Comey’s sense of obligation to Congress was the key factor driving his decision.

There you have it. It is a an opinion; he acted out of ‘duty’. Keep moving folks, there’s nothing else to see here.

When Comey did  his disreputable deed a week before the elections, The WaPo was not the only one to come to Comey’s defense. There was, and continues to be, consensus and agreement by the owners of the media in casting Comey as a good FBI worker caught in the jaws of party politics, and in particular, in Hillary’s ‘web of deceit’, which is how they characterized her involvement in the scandal. You can google Comey and this is what you get:

Comey a Good Man, But He Made a Serious Mistake

Comey’s unintended consequences…

Of course, Hillary Clinton was cast throughout the campaign as dishonest and corrupt by choice. When it came to cast the blame on the outcome of the elections, Comey was a victim, and Clinton lost because, well, she had to.

For one, why are Democrats making Comey the scapegoat when their own presidential candidate was disliked by 56 percent of the population? WaPo’s Cilliza

Comey is “the scapegoat”, and the public shouldn’t complain about manipulations of their democratic process by the media or by a cabal of politicians acting behind the curtains. The message there is simple: We the media told you that Clinton is disliked even more than Trump; that’s a fact and shut up.

Of course, Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million votes more than Trump. The public didn’t want Trump, but the message, even after the facts, the MYTH is that the public didn’t like her and Trump is the people’s choice.

It is the curse of mass of humanity that it can be manipulated at will by a handful of powerful men.

I don’t see how this is going to change any time soon.

For the moment, Comey is the good guy and “scapegoat”.  Hillary is the evil doer. Trump is El Duce.

Enjoy your bizarro life.

 

 

 

 

 

Trump and globalists slowly but steadily turning US into fascist nation

Words that matter in current political events: Consolidation of power, cracks in the elites’ wall, one-party nation.

It is impossible to get a clear picture of current fights for political power without putting the pieces of news together, for our only source of information is the media news.

But we read the news as trained to read them: As today’s news, not yesterday news. The public receive the news as discrete pieces of information, and the least connections or relationship between the pieces the readers find, the most successful the propaganda is.

Connect the headlines that are related, then decide what the message is.

 

The CEOs of the media conglomerate (it means here the Bloomberg’s, the Murdoch’s and Bezos, the Mexican national owner of the NYT, Carlos Slim, among others) they all present the public with the same picture about our current political environment: it’s all about the GOP against Trump, or Trump against the GOP. They NEVER mention or discuss the divisions between the conservative and the globalist elites

The true power struggle in our nation’s politics is between the globalists and the conservatives of assorted ideological flavors, warring for control of our government. 

shameful seven 1

From somewhere in the internet.

Up until this presidential election, the globalists happily  controlled our government, politics and politicians from behind the curtains, hidden from the public’s eyes. For this they have always counted on the Myth of the businessman as political outsider, not interested in politics but in making money. This myth creates a physical distance between the little people and them oligarchs: The little ones see each other and the paid politicians, but not the hands moving their nation behind the curtains.

oo

Google for images of “myth of the outsider” and this is the very first image they give you. It is well known that Google and FB manipulate search results. They are globalists, so they want Trump as your first ‘outsider’.

That explains in part why the conservative masses (and poor Sandernsnistas) identify with Trump; they see him as the politically uncorrupted and ‘outsider’ businessman. But the media conglomerate fed that image to the public throughout the campaigns. Yes, he was lewd and immoral, but they never accused him of being a corrupt billionaire elitist. That would be akin to calling the attention on themselves as a class.

The most valuable personality trait, the one the media conglomerate made sure, day in and day out, you don’t forget, is that Trump is a businessman. Without it there’s no magic. The public then makes the subconscious association (trained by years of propaganda), an ‘outsider’, and the media reinforces  the ‘correctness’ of the association.

All of the above also explains the “angry voters phenomenon”. They want to tear down “the establishment”, by which they mean the political parties and the old politicians in it. They are not against globalism or capitalism, they are against politicians who don’t throw them a bone. That’s the way it has to be, according to the oligarchs; politicians are paid patsies. As long as the elite is invisible, the little people sees only corrupt politicians enacting the policies that benefit the oligarchy.

And that is how we arrived at the 2016 presidential elections cycle.

Donald the chameleon: Ditching the paleo and wearing the ‘future’

The Donald is cypher to the public, that’s how he likes it. He is anything he needs to be according to the times and situations surrounding him. The man is on for himself, his only alliance is to himself and his family. He will do whatever he needs to do to get you to do his bidding. He was a democrat until he wasn’t, he was paleoconservative until he became globalist. He was pro-abortion and non-religious until he courted the fanatic religious right. It’s called shameless opportunism

Right now, he is doing the globalist bit. He has to because he is no loser. Who has the most power and the most money on this planet? “We the people’? Paleos like McCain, Rubio or Cruz?

Conservatism, paleo or third-way, is old fashion. Hey, I’m not the one saying it.

Roy Bailey, a Texas-based insurance executive who also gave to Rubio’s presidential campaign, said he backs Tillerson. The resistance to Tillerson, he said, “sounds like old politics to me as opposed to a new way of thinking.

Rex Tillerson is the globalist in charge of globalist corporation ExxonMobile, its CEO. It doesn’t get more globalist than that. And per Bailey, opposing Tillerson = opposing globalism, which is a modern ideology compared to ‘paleo’ conservatism, which looks to the past.

But the ‘new way of thinking’ is not what you imagine. To be sure, the article doesn’t tell us what Bailey means by it. You have to use your political acumen to read between the lines the meaning of those words.

The new way of thinking is using Trump’s pseudo-populism graft the globalists’ cream de la cream directly into the branches of power in our government. It is a take-over of government by the globalist elites. The new way of thinking is putting aside the fears Trump engendered in the globalists and join him in a new America: a fascist America led by a new El Duce, a populists who can control the masses.

Anyway, that quote up there announces that with Trump, globalists won. They are the new kid on the White House.

Putin wins: Conservatives bow to globalist money

Image result for tillerson

Rex Tillerson and the man.

We see the triumph of the globalists, not only in Trump filling his cabinet with them, but in that every GOP paleocon is bowing to the king. I doubt anyone reading this would disagree with that assessment. It is so evident I don’t need to dwell on it.

But the globalists coup is painstaking; the rest of the conservatives are wishing and waiting for the best offers to switch sides. It’s a matter of time, but the offers are flying off the shelf like Wal-Mart’s prices.

At the start of the week, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) [anti-globalist] seemed bent on opposing the nomination of Rex Tillerson for secretary of state…By the end of it, Rubio had heard directly from former vice president Richard B. Cheney.

Robert McNair, a Texas-based GOP donor who gave $500,000 to a super PAC supporting Rubio for president, said he plans to call the Florida senator to coax him to back Tillerson.

Tillerson boosters enjoy direct lines of communication to Rubio

What are the chances that Rubio, under that heavy pressure,  will put his conservative values above half a billion dollars, and in the process disappoint the hand that feeds him, McNaire, the guy who got him that money for his super Pac? I bet no chances.

After Trump officially tapped Tillerson on Tuesday, Rubio released a statement saying that he has “serious concerns” about his nomination, but will work to “ensure he receives a full and fair but also thorough hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

These old fashion conservatives have no money, but they have dreams of power. Globalists’ money can make those dreams come true.

“Anyone who knows Marco well, and I’m one who does, knows foreign policy is his first, second and third interest,” said George Seay, a Texas-based Rubio donor. “I think Marco will plant his flag in that area.”

As I said above, the paleoscons are waiting in line for their turn to join the Trump magical ride. Paul rand is ready to support globalist Tillerson.

Paul said he has “an open mind” on Tillerson.

As you can see, this article gives you a picture of what is going on behind the ‘we the people’s  back. A fight for the powerful cabinet position between globalists and conservatives. It’s not the GOP vs Trump. Is globalist, with Trump, Cheney and ExxonMobile vs the GOP conservatives.

Putin is a sign, a symbol the conservatives give the public to distract from the real issue with Putin: that globalists want to continue doing business with him openly and officially, as part of the function of government, and paleocons don’t want globalism.  It’s not about Putin rigging the elections, but Dick Cheney and his globalists must fight that false narrative about Putin. So you hear them  praising Putin as peace lover and defeating the “Obama criminal Syria policy”.

Expect the GOP’s old conservatives changing turning their hatred of Putin into loving-everything-Putin. The hacking of the elections? If I were Hillary Clinton, I would take a long vacation to Sweden or some place away from here. The masses are still chanting “lock her up”; the oligarchs will have no problem feeding her to the masses if it takes the pressure and attention off themselves

The new way of thinking: the one-party USA

Image result for trump and the one-party nation

Image result for trump and one-party nation

This is a globalists’ coup, and they need to take control of the government openly immediately if they are to survive.

One reason is that they know, once they start fleecing the people of this nation, Trump won’t be able to charm his populist deplorables and Sandersnistas into obedience. Also, all of them, and specially Trump, know that he doesn’t have the support of the people; he didn’t win the popular vote. Trump is not the people’s president; he is the politicians’ president. The politicians in the electoral college will confirm this once they ratify their will over that of the people.

It is an imperative for the globalists to take control of the government, so don’t expect for it to happen haphazardly. These people have been working on this since before Trump won. The time is ripe for a one-party nation. The Democratic Party is dying, poisoned by the so-called third-way conservatives, the one who speak the leftists lingo because they are anti-globalists. But as we are seeing, anti-globalists are being bought by the globalists.

This is the bells tolling for the DNC, this could not have happened without planning:

Amid outcry, N.C. GOP passes law to curb Democratic governor’s power

…the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature has passed changes that would severely limit the incoming Democratic governor’s power.

The destruction of the Democratic Party and creation of a truly progressive political movement is the only hope for black America.” Black Agenda Report

“The destruction of the Democratic Party” has been the goal of the so-called third-way conservatives. These are the conservatives who sound like leftists because they speak the anti-globalism lingo. These conservatives have aimed at the banishment of the Dem Party since the elections, joining the pseudo-leftist at Counter Punch and other online ‘leftist’ magazines in their misogynistic attacks on HC and the party as her ‘tool’ for doing ‘evil deeds’.

Bernie Sanders is helping them in the destruction of the party. While he was running on it, he never stopped casting the party as ‘old’ and in need to be ‘reformed’. Now that the elections are over, he joined these third-way conservatives to push the electoral college voters to elect a REPUBLICAN! Kasich.

The globalists need every government agency, and zero opposition at home. The two-party system is an obstacle for obvious reasons. Not much that is happening since Trump took the presidency has not been previously planned. The globalists have been busy working their international connections, and as evidence I give you the Taiwan incident. You see, the media conglomerate can’t avoid giving the truth in their news, they give you true facts; it is up to you to recognize them and put the pieces of the political puzzle together. The Taiwan incident was cooking since at least 2015. See my post Trump’s Taiwan Connections

There is an ongoing battle to control our government between conservatives and globalists. I have said it since the primaries, and gave you as evidence that globalists are winning the article about Dick Cheney coming out to support Trump. As I said then, Trump doesn’t have to worry about lacking experience running a government; Cheney and Bush Jr. and that despicable bunch of humanity has his back. They are counseling him, they are guiding him to create a wall of generals in key government positions to militarize the nation when the real switch from democracy to fascism happens.

It will all start the day Trump is sworn in as president.

 

The bloody war the MSM doesn’t want you to see: Trump’s War of the Elites

In a recent post I mentioned that the lying media (MSM and pseudo-leftist) refuses to publish opinions recognizing the now calamitous internal divisions and political war of the elites against each other: the globalists and conservatives of all flavors – neocons, paleocons, third-positioners conservatives, and everything in between.

The problem is: ‘we the people’ are the ones who will be spilling their blood after Trump is crowned king of the paleoconservatives.

Trump as the heroic outsider, not the ruthless paleocon

On the contrary, the owners of the media, Bezos, Murdoch, Carlos Slim (NYT), etc., who are involved in that war of the elites, have given us, since the primaries to today, the myth of the billionaire businessman as political outsider. They know that Trump has long been a paleocon, and even if they didn’t, they know and can recognize a paleoconservative political position when they see one. There is no space for these media CEOs to claim ignorance of either the ongoing war of the elites or of Trump’ side on that war: they are crusaders for their own faction in that war.

Why hide the elites’ intestine strife

They hide it from the public because the elite is clear that it is a war among themselves, that ‘we the people’ is not part of the elite and should not take any part in their war except as live ammo.

The warring sides, all of them, use the media to weaponize the ‘civilians’ against each faction. The ‘opinions’ in the media that pass as ‘information’ are nothing but propaganda to manipulate the citizens’ emotions into supporting/rejecting the different factions. That’s one of the political functions of the media, to manipulate the masses’ opinions.

Who are the warring factions?

For ‘we the people’, this is probably the most important aspect of that internal fight between the elite. If we can’t recognize the various members of the elite and the side they are taking, then we will continue to be peons on their chess board, with no say except ‘yes, my Lord‘.

But the dishonest media has made it extremely difficult for citizens to recognize the many warring sides. It hides behind the cult of personality the political interests of elite groups. All we see is Trump being attack by so-and-so, maybe a battle between the GOP ‘establishment’ against Trump (not against paleos but against him, the populist leader) with no specification of which of the various factions of that group is involved in the attacks.

The ‘establishment’ now is anybody who is not in Trump’s camp: globalists and non-paleoconservatives, with  ‘Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment’ as the most “evil” representative of that generic ‘establishment. The conservatives want to demolish the Democratic party and are using the pseudo-left to do the job. More on this later.

Orwellian newspeak in reverse

Another element that makes it difficult to recognize the different pieces that form the whole of the elite is language. I wish it were ESL but, no; it is the manipulation of political language.

The elite (globalists, but conservatives more than them) uses the same political concepts of ‘liberals’ and, more significant, the leftists’ old Bolshevist political dictionary.

Thus you read paleos and ‘third-positionists’ talking about “the lying media” (Trump and his paleos) and “the presstitute media” (Robert Craig Roberts and the ‘third-positionists in the leftists media – Counter Punch, e.g.), about “greedy Wall Street capitalists” and “anti-American-anti-humanity globalists”, just to name a few examples. These are the expressions of an angry mass of people, furious because they feel oppressed by globalists, big corporations and Wall Street. What this mass of people doesn’t realize is that the conservatives have the same enemy; but that doesn’t make them friend of the masses, does it?

The dishonesty resides in speaking and presenting themselves as liberals and leftists when their elitist and conservative goals are in exact opposition to the people’s. They publish their opinions in pseudo-leftists magazines, attracting with their anti-globalist verbiage the unsuspecting readers. That’s how Trump ended up as the modern El Duce; by pretending to be the enemy of the people’s enemy. Job well done!

What passes today as the American Left is not leftist at all; it is the conservative third-positionists speaking anti-globalism, anti-capitlalism, and anti-oligarchy. The Left doesn’t exist anymore.

…and the left-wing (to the extent that one still exists)… Paul Craig Roberts

Sorry, The Nation.

Next: Tasting the different conservative flavors: paleos, third-positioners, neocons.

Trump and the Fantastic End of American Exceptionalism

Humanity can’t expect to improve its lot when it places its hopes in immoral ‘leaders’.

That was me who said that. In all seriousness, though, that’s the predicament we all find ourselves on this planet: Who will we choose as our global leaders?

The USA has always pride on being the ‘shining beacon of hope of the world’, the example to be followed towards a society of free, wealthy and healthy men and women and children. The example we have given the world today is of how to achieve the opposite.

All over the world there are now politicians imitating our first lewd president in all his immoral regalia. That’s the first of three signs of the end of American exceptionalism.

europe

(That word, “opposite“, is significant in describing where humanity is heading to; I use it through out this post.)

Trump’s example didn’t  happen serendipitously. Nations are in a state of collective chaos, politically, economically, morally…Trump is the most egregious evidence that this is the condition in the USA too. Americans have always seen themselves as apart from the rest of the world, haven’t they?

But they have officially joined the rest of the planet in its maddening race to the bottom of the cesspool. Trump’s followers, including the zombie American Left who supports him, say that the appalling conflict of interest of him mixing his personal business with that of running our government, is not big deal.

Anyway, that chaos has been slow-cooking for the last 50 years, and the master cook’s name is Globalism.

conflict

The American consumers eating this cook’s garbage elected the Apprentice guy to do their job for them, to tell the GOP’s members who didn’t support him “You are fired”. Poor things; they have no contact with reality except through ‘reality TV‘.

I italicized “GOP’s members’ because his followers are not complaining about him filling his cabinet with ultra-right wing Wall Street and globalists men; the opposite of what they elected him to do.

Despite the above, the ‘end of American exceptionalism’ comes courtesy of the globalists, not of Trump or the deplorables. They own this orange mess; they know it too. That’s the second sign of the end of our claim to ‘exceptionalism’, that the globalists know they gave us the Trump virus that sickened this nation and, effectively, destroyed the ‘exceptional’ image.

Continuing with the ‘cooking’ metaphor, our master cook, Larry Summers, knows exactly what’s wrong with his recipe:

Donald Trump’s rise goes beyond his demagogic appeal. It is a reflection of the political psychology of frustration – people see him as responding to their fears about the modern world order, an outsider fighting for those who have been left behind.

And they see the disintegration that accompanies global integration, as communities suffer when big employers lose to foreign competitors.

That last one is very spicy: “the disintegration that accompanies global integration‘. That is a beautiful example of dialectic logic, the unity of opposites or contraries. He is telling the nature of globalism: a major contradiction in that it benefits a few but controls everybody’s way of life. It explains regular folks contradictory behaviors. It’s like a bad marriage: can’t live with him, can’t live without him.

The reader surely can see who gets the end of the stick in that quote. It is valid to say that globalism benefits only a few, or the opposite statement, few benefit from globalism. Our master cook agrees:

a project carried out by elites for elites with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people

With a recipe like that, it’s a matter of time when you will have to close the kitchen.

Elites can continue pursuing and defending integration, hoping to win sufficient popular support — but… this strategy may have run its course.

Globalism is kaput, it has caused all the havoc humanity can tolerate without violently revolting against it by sticking globalists’ heads in the proverbial pitchforks. The globalists have armaments against pitchforks, though. That’s the way they are going to protect themselves from the “angry voters”.

Trump is the evidence that “this strategyhas run its course. He is not the shining hero coming to rescue humanity, he is the opposite. He is like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse coming to deliver the last blow to humanity. But don’t say that to his local and worldwide followers.

We saw during the primaries and presidential election this man’s true character. He is amoral, his goal in life is to amass as much profit as he can, without any moral considerations. Well, you saw the picture, I don’t need to dwell on it.

The point is: Humanity can’t expect to improve its lot when by placing its hopes in immoral ‘leaders’.

I propose to you that this global crisis will continue for the next 20 years, at least; and it will get worse before it starts to subside. Citizens will continue acting and moving in opposite direction of their own self interests, as I have tried to show here.

Trump will drag our nation to the swamp; with him, there’s no other path but to the bottom. The owners of the media conglomerate, the Murdoch’s, the Jeff Bezos’, the Bloomberg’s, the Mortimer Zuckerman’s and the Carlos Slim’s (owns The New York Times) of the world will make sure you keep moving to the bottom and against your own interests. That’s what they did when they gave you ’emails scandal’ 24/7 so you would feel repulsed by Hillary Clinton and vote against her. That’s what happened, didn’t it?

media

Small group of media moguls, from left to right: Murdoch, Jeff Bezos, Mortimer Zuckerrman, Bloomy, and Mexican Carlos Slim. Did you know that The New York Times is owned by that Mexican guy? Just saying.

These media’s corrupt souls decide what you read, how to read it, and how to react to what they feed you. In that way they will guide your actions like master puppeteer. More contradictions: Trump called them “lying media”, implying they publish propaganda; the people agreed with him, but continue to trust the dishonest media”.

The only way I see the USA regaining its place as that beacon of hope is if its citizens intelligently rise to confront both Trump and the globalist oligarchy. But I don’t have much hope for that. The American people is still in love with capitalism and with globalism. I have described how they act in opposition to what they say they want.

The media and the intellectually spent American Left  have convinced the masses that the problem is not Trump or the globalists but the Clinton’s. They too own that virus.

To that effect, Sanders, some Democrats and the Leftists are trying to convince GOP republicans in the Electoral College to vote for another republican, Kasich! That’s the third sign we lost our prestige as leaders of the world.

With that display of intellectual dishonesty, the so-called leftists are telling us ‘don’t count on us to guide you or to give you the best thought out political analysis‘.

America has lost its place as example to humanity. Who will claim that torch in the near future?

The Woman Card: Fascism and Misogyny in the New Millennium (updated)

[Grammar police, STAY OUT]

Introduction:

Fascism is the ideology of discontent, at least according the description we get of its origins from books analyzing its history.

Question: Did misogyny disappear with the defeat of fascism at the end of WWII?
[Warning: This post contains irreverent opinions and one mild profanity to make sure the irreverency is not missed.]

If you say ‘no’, it didn’t, then you are admitting that it is alive and that our economic and ideological model, capitalism, is misogynistic.  So let’s look into it. Fascism and capitalism were and are misogynistic in nature. It can’t come as a surprise, then, that feminism was in the ballot this last presidential elections with the first woman running for it, and that there was a successful effort to defeat it.

Enter Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton ran openly as a feminist this past presidential elections; thus, feminism itself was in the ballot. And that’s how it came to be that the ‘threat’ of a feminist becoming president and ruling over our modern masculine fascists and their world had them very discontented. Even if she didn’t run as a feminist, these men still would have had a problem with a woman in the highest office, and misogyny would have still be used against her.

Hillary Clinton openly stated in a Rachel Maddow town-hall interview that she was running as a feminist; and her words at that international feminist gathering in Beijing on 1995 are well-known. There can be no doubt that she brought the feminist perspective to the elections, even if she had tried to hide it (which she didn’t).  So feminism had to be defeated. Did you expect the media and anti-feminist men (right and left) to say openly that they were against feminism? So, did you??? Even if she didn’t run as a feminist, these men still would have had a problem with a woman in the highest office in the nation, and misogyny would have still be used against her.

But that threat was averted on November 8 in the only way feminism can be averted, here or in any other place on this magnificent planet: With a concerted campaign of transparent misogyny. Feminism, not only Hillary Clinton, was defeated on that date, and we don’t know if she will recover from it.

Destroying feminism entailed destroying Hillary Clinton: the two were tied together, whether you agree or disagree with her ‘brand’ of feminism. So killing the threat of feminism was done with the powerful media tool of public character assassination, that of Clinton’s. Oh, it was her, not feminism, whom fascists and pseudo-Marxists hated; at least that was their excuse for the virulent misogynistic attacks on her.

The gun of misogyny is there, not in your hand but at the tip of your own tongue, an automatic weapon to be used any time you feel aggrieved or irked by any woman. It was a tool stealthily  and successfully used this presidential election cycle, but it has been in use since humans began to form into social groups. Don’t worry, I won’t go that far back. But I will discuss how fascism’s anti-feminism is a real danger for women in the Trumpist presidency, and how feminism was the issue at the top of this election cycle.

The Woman Card: Fascism and Misogyny in the New Millennium

Some people argue that fascism disappeared at the end of WW2, but no one can convincingly argue that misogyny disappeared with it. Why? Because misogyny didn’t originate with fascism; it is much older than it.

Misogyny was and is an integral part of fascism, but it didn’t originate with it nor did it end with it; it is a problem pestering humanity since, well, let’s say since God decided to side with Adam over that incident in His garden. From Eve losing her case in front of God  came the adage: S/he who is her own lawyer, has a fool for a client.

Anyway, misogyny is fine, thank you for not asking.

This presidential election cycle was defined by two important elements: Feminism an identity politics. The defining happened at the subconscious level, by innuendo; never discussed in the open. These two are the same elements discussed about fascism (as I discuss below); they are there because the human condition has not changed much; advance in technologically, yes, but not humanistically speaking. We are still living under the capitalist ideology (its advanced phase), and women continue to be the oppressed half of the world population based on her sex.Who benefits from saying that we should not discuss identity politics, like racism? White supremacists do. Who from avoiding discussing the oppression of women (sex slavery, lack of health services…)? Sexist men and the capitalists who benefit from avoiding discussing it.

Beginnings: League for the Prevention of Women’s Emancipation

Since its inception, back in the late 1800s, with capitalism in its baby-phase causing havoc on the old economic/social/political order, fascism has been the refuge of men who literally hate everyone who is not them and whom they can’t dominate and exploit. Fascism is actually a creature of capitalism, a reaction against it by the old dominant military and landed classes threatened by the new kid on the blog. It’s worth mentioning that early capitalism was a revolutionary and progressive force, despite its intrinsic contradiction, the oppression of the same working class without which it can’t exist.

Consider the following as a reminder of how proud the first wave of fascists were of their misogyny and their intent to keep women in the kitchen. There was, in 1912-1920, a German  League for the Prevention of Women’s Emancipation. Today, Bannon and Trump call it the GOP.

Capitalism not only brought the old order on its head, it also brought (not of its own choosing, OK?) the Age of the Masses. It makes sense that it did because capitalism thrives on exploiting people en mass.

The point is, capitalism and its era of imperialism came with its own disease: Oppression of humanity as a group; so humanity organized itself against it in terms of groups, identity groups, i.e.: socialists, communists, labor groups, ethnic groups, national minorities…name an identity, it had a group. And then there was that other group that represents half of humanity: women’s groups – Feminists and Feminism.

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, the European landowner class and its military subclass found itself in that soup of humanity organizing and fighting against early capitalism and its nascent imperialism. They were just another annoying group making life difficult to the new capitalist class. But it was from that particular group of humans that fascism came into existence.

Historically shared interests of fascists and communists: Because shit happens

Thus, among the many characteristics of old and new fascism you find: hatred of capitalists (today in the form of ‘hatred of globalism’), of socialists, of communists, of ethnic groups, of labor… and of feminists. These groups, according to ol’ fascists, put their own impure interests above that of the nation and of private property. Hello. Funny thing is, capitalists, then as today, joined with fascists against the masses of the oppressed, with the same arguments today as yesterdays. Let me explain, but not ‘mansplaning’.

Capitalists then, as today, can’t tolerate any better than fascism did a humanity standing against them, against their globalism, against the rape of the environment…they too can’t tolerate women organizing against patriarchy, that living ancient institution. So today they join fascism, and pretend to not be one of them. Not much have changed, people. The worse attack is the one you don’t see coming. You don’t see capitalists/globalists/Silicon Valley’s software kings pointing their misogynistic guns at you. You only see the GOP and Trump doing it, right? Wrong.

Let’s see how they succeeded in the elections to defeat feminism.

Firstly, the MSM (main stream media) gave the public one image of Hillary Clinton, one from that women’s conference, to sear it in their minds as the image of Hillary ‘the evil feminist’. It was the MSM’s view of Hillary’s feminism that the public absorbed, not hers. 

Image result for hillary clinton beijing speech media bashing

“Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights once and for all.” The slogan that scared the bejesus out of anti-feminists. She can’t lead the free world with that attitude, can she?

Secondly, as I said before, misogyny is live and well. We see it in violence against women, policies purposely created to keep them in economic disadvantage, sexual harassment at work…And these problems are mild in the USA; worldwide they are truly picante. In any case, our capitalist industrialists, war armament builders and sellers, financial, and Silicon Valley tech giants are mostly men, and men at the highest echelon of power are (like fascism) by nature misogynists. This may come across as a generalization, but it is one based on reality, and requires another post to discuss it.

Thirdly, feminism has never gotten the approval of politicians nor the public in general. Just as fascists accused its enemy of putting their own dirty interests above those of the nation and private property, feminist women continue to be attacked for the same crimes. Bernie Sanders and the zombie Leftists (my term) have blamed Hillary Clinton’s feminism for her loss to Trump. How dare she raise women’s issues ‘above’ the interests of the white blue-collar men of the Midwest. For the anti-feminists in the right and left wings, economic issues trump women’ struggle for political power, even though the oppression of women is as much an economic problem as a political/cultural issue. The oppression of women existed since men learned to use their thumb to carry that big stick with which they hit women over the head to own them. Well, that’s the old cartoon; it exists for something.

Related image

Misogyny has been the favorite weapon against Hillary Clinton since she was First Lady (FL). The media vilified her for not acting like a ‘typical’ FL, for having desires for power of her own. And as I showed with ample examples on this blog, the American Left attacked her as a woman, not only her politics. They portrayed her as a witch, a prostitute, a bitch, man-eater…there was no stereotype of a woman they didn’t use.

Both the zombie Leftists and the MSM denied during the campaigns that they were attacking her as a woman and for her feminism, but after she lost, they blamed her feminism for it, as discussed in this blog.

There’s nothing I can add to the description of Trump as a misogynist, you all know it, except that the zombie Leftists defended him, calling the criticisms against him for those attacks as “unfair” and “unnecessary”. In their sweet anachronistic Marxism, they stated that identity issues, feminism above all, are not important.

“In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.” Peter Lee Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism at Counter Punch

Another interesting fact to note is that, while the MSM was attacking Trump as lewd  (they never used against him the term misogynist proper), they denied they were using misogyny to attack Clinton. I guess that’s why they are known as “the dishonest media”. They ridiculed her for her tone of voice, for her laughter, how she looked…They portrayed her as more ‘evil’ than Trump because…she dared to want the presidency. Trump was presented as a buffoon, innocent and wanting ‘to stop globalism’.

No man who hates women want one in the White House, least of all if she is a feminist card carrier. It would be naive to believe that anti-feminism and misogyny were not at the top of these elections cycle. In the modern world,  capitalism depends on the myth of democracy and freedom for everybody, it can’t admit it is soaked in misogyny.

But hatred of women is not an economic issue, it is also a cultural issue, an identity issue: Men who identify themselves as too macho to let women ‘control’ them, vs the women whose place in society is decided by them. It has been with us since before humans organized in economic and national groups. It is truly a battle of the sexes. As long as men have the political and economic power, they control the rest of the culture of a society. With the help of certain religions, the MSM, public/private education…the myth that there is no organized hatred of women continues to blind us, despite the daily reports of attacks on women by governments. In the US, ant-abortion is the most blatant form of misogyny, and it comes in covert and overt policies, like reducing access to it for poor women.

So when the MSM made Hillary Clinton so disgusting in the eyes of the public with their innuendos about her being a dishonest “woman”, it was with that in mind that the zombie Leftists and the politically green millennial voted against her. Feminism lost, fascism won. Sanders followers rather vote for a fascist white man than for a feminist, all under cover of her ‘political crimes’. It was not only the emails, it was the 20 years+ of misogynistic attacks on Hillary that succeeded in pushing away the support for her.

On November 8, cowardly and emotionally insecure men of all colors, ethnic background and wallet size (and women afraid of men’s violence against women who fight back) breathe a sigh of relief knowing that no feminist woman was going to be their boss and at the top of the world. They feel now secure and protected in the hands of that virile and bullying white billionaire. They see his acts of corruption the way he does: A sign of  masculine power; as they wish to be.

There is a sense of social angst coming from Trump seizing the presidency, a kind of social premonition that he will unleash fascism in its modern form here and worldwide.

Because misogyny is its most enduring quality, hidden under cultural stereotypes, expect women’s right to take a dive in the next four years, or 12.

Women, you can’t count on the zombie Leftist. They are with Trump.

I suggest you bring to your fold the many men who are emotionally mature as to not be afraid of you seeking the same social benefits they have.

Until then, nasty women, don’t give up.

MSM (Fake News) and Trump: The Truth About Their Secret Meetings

Remember that ‘barrage’ of Trump’s tweets on November 21-22? They were a smoke screen to keep you distracted from the secret meetings Trump was having with the “dishonest media”. That was fake news.

Keep reading. See how the fake tweets and fake news of that day were created. It’s a long process, but at the end you will see the results.

The Media swears Fealty to the Don Behind Closed Doors

The oligarchy and conservatives of differing ideologies and bank accounts sizes are lining up to guide the Apprentice President and put their resources at his disposition (all highlights and underlines by me):

But we’re happy that he’s picking people who have that free market background, particularly because on many issues, he is a blank slate, so anybody with expertise is in an amazing position to shape his agenda.” On Trump surrounding himself with ultra-libertarian Kock brothers’ network members, at Politico.

The American mainstream media MSM is also in line pledging their support to the Donald, the man they used to call during the elections “a threat to democracy” and “the most immoral candidate ever to run for president”. They share much with Mitt Romney in that way, don’t they?

But their pledging is happening behind closed doors. It does matter, folks, that it is behind closed doors.

Trump met in private with the owners of cable and TV networks on Monday November 21. The next day, Tuesday 22, he met with The New York Times (NYT), first in private and afterwards on an on-the-record “conversation”. The problem with this is…nobody gives anything for nothing at the highest levels of the oligarchy or the MSM. The free market demands an exchange of values. But no one in the media is letting us in on that transaction. Pity.

In a veiled effort to protect the Don from criticism from his followers for having secret deals with the despised “dishonest media”, some media outlets tried to justify the secret meetings as something perfectly normal.

The “lying media” told us that week, after the meetings took place, that every elected president meets with the MSM before/after his (no female president yet) inauguration to set the goals, rules of the game, and understandings that will characterize their relation in the new administration. They explained that those perfectly normal meetings are held both on-and off-the-record. There’s a private meeting from which the public is kept in the dark, and a meeting where the media let’s the public in.

Note: You are probably trying to figure out why is this so familiar? Well, it has to do with Hillary Clinton. Of course! Now you remember, don’t you? The MSM vilified her as acorrupt liar and not trustworthy because she once supposedly said in a ‘secret speech’ to Wall Street, that every administration should have two forms of meetings, one private and one for the public. We didn’t get to know from the media her explanation nor the context of the comment. Only the fact that she said it was necessary to portray her as corrupt. [TRUE FACTS USED AS WEAPON:Spinning] She clarified later, but not published by the MSM, that she was talking on the topic of security of government information.

But now the MSM has no moral compunctions about hiding from the public their conversations with the man they said “threatens our democracy”. That same man,Trump, must have gotten what he needed from that private meeting with The NYT, for he came out of it gushing praises at The Times as the “jewel” of the world media.

TRUMP: Thank you all, very much, it’s a great honor. I will say, The Times is, it’s a great, great American jewel. A world jewel. And I hope we can all get along. We’re looking for the same thing, and I hope we can all get along well.

Knowing Trump as we do, we know he gushes for no one for free. We didn’t get the transcript of that private meeting, so we don’t know how close and intimate that relationship between the MSM and his administration will be. But based on the story they concocted for the public during those two days, we can imagine how close that relation will be. Too close.

Who Needs Who More: A Quid pro Quo a la Carte

The Apprentice President, as any president, will need the support of the MSM. In part to help disseminate the (mis)information needed to obtain public opinion support for his policies, whether from direct press releases  and friendly press conferences, or from ‘leaks’ to the media.

For example, the American MSM agreed to cover the 2002 invasion of Iraq on President Bush’s Jr. terms, agreeing in that way to compromise its independence and credibility. There were to be no emotional TV images of soldiers’ coffins arriving at the airport, and no free-roaming-through-Iraq journalists: Only media “embedded” to the military would be allowed and ‘protected’. This media policy aimed at controlling negative public opinion of the war that would have resulted as a consequence of uncensored journalists’ reports. Vice President Dick Cheney memorably stated “this is not going to be covered like Vietnam”. And so it wasn’t.

But the media moguls also depend on access to the president’s administration for their business of public (mis)information; and also because, as owners of the media, they are part of the oligarchy, they want to control what information comes out of the White House and Congress. Murdock and Bezos have interests to protect too. They are not called ‘the fourth power’ for nothing. Except that this new president was “tremendously” successful at vilifying the “dishonest and lying media”. A democracy can’t tolerate the perception that its mainstream media is the equivalent of Soviet propaganda state media. Be clear about this, when the Donald called them “dishonest and lying media”, he meant propaganda media. That’s salesmanship.

And this is why it is in the public’s interest to know how the media moguls and Trump negotiated the future of the media relationship with his administration.

So, as you can see, this situation requires a quid pro quo. Enter the drama.

The Apprentice President Episode01: Fake news – media ‘startled’ by fake Salvo of tweets from crazy president (this is good!)

As new president-appointed, the Donald had his first “bigly” meetings with the media in the only way he knows how: as a Trump event, pure entertainment.

He had scheduled, days ahead of time, meetings with cable and TV media moguls for Monday 21 November, and with The New York Times (NYT) for Tuesday 22 November. Both were to be off-the-record meetings, but the public was not informed ahead of time about the scheduled meetings.

As I discussed above, it just doesn’t look good for the new president to be meeting in secret with the media. So, they do what they do best: Turn the whole affair into a show/drama to keep the people’s attention away from the private meetings as they were happening. While the private meetings were going on, the rest of the media was in a ‘frenzy’ ‘informing’ the public about Trump’s ‘crazy’ tweets. Oh my god, he cancelled the on-the-record meeting but…wait, he uncancelled it!

Meanwhile, you didn’t realize he had already met in private with the NYT. The drama they created around the fake tweets is appalling in its deviousness.

The Fake News

All of the media made the exact same report about Trump “barrage of tweets” to cancel the meeting with the NYT.

According to the agreed-upon-by-everyone-facts, the media told us that Trump woke up early in the morning of November 22, at 6:31 AM to be precise, to start a “barrage” of tweets at that time about cancelling and “uncancelling” his meeting with the NYT. Funny thing is, the agreed-upon fact, that he was up at 6:16 AM, is inaccurate.

The first tweet happened at 3:16 AM. oops! Not one media outlet took notice of the discrepancy.

tweet2

Two different tweets. Top tweet says 3:16 AM. Bottom one says 6:16 AM. Different ‘heart’ and re-tweet amounts. {It was not a re-tweet. How can one tweet appear later with different time and yet with LESS ‘likes’  than the earliest one?]The first has more on all counts. link for top tweet:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/801021596228091905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Those are two different tweets. It matters because, if I’m correct that those are two different tweets, they point at concerted deception by all MSM involved. The intention was to tie the public from early morning on an all-day media frenzy about Trump cancelling and “uncancelling” the meetings, with all the distraction attached to it, and with the intention of concealing the fact that Trump and the MSM had agree to, and were in fact meeting in secret.

The script every media outlet was to use went like this:

Trump ‘unleashed’ a ‘crazy barrage’ of tweets to ‘punish’ the ‘lying media’ for ‘lying about him’ (as in ‘they deserved it’). Their reports should all emphasize an image of Trump as being consistent with his anti-media campaign attitude and his promise to ‘deal’ with the “dishonest media”. And he should come across as castigating the media and making them scared of him, in other words, he must be portrayed as masculine and powerfully virile, even if ‘crazy’.

As you can see from the Google search ‘trump meeting with the media tweets’, they used powerful active verbs and descriptive words to describe him: he “scolded the media”, “slammed the mainstream media”, “openly [he’s no afraid of them] criticized the media”

In other words, Trump went OTT (over the top) of the TV networks and spoke directly to the American people, as his predecessor, President Barack Obama, had done on occasion. The intended message to the TV networks and to the American audience was, “I don’t need the TV networks to communicate with the people. I can use social media platforms on the internet.” He thus threw a spotlight on the shift of media power from linear TV to the random-access and immediate, on-demand-access content distributed on the internet. [Forbes mag: Trump Meetings Spotlight A Media Power Shift]

He spoke “directly to the American peoplethrough tweets, for crying out loud. They even compared him with Obama! And the message? He will be talking to the public through tweeter! Notice also the phenomenon I have called Trump Apologist: People who explain Trump’s behaviors and intentions to the public as if they were in his mind. That guy on that quote seem to be speaking for Trump.

from-google

From Google search.

And, finally, the MSM was reporting ‘live’ from inside the private meetings. They were not reporting any agreements about what kind of relations will exist between his administration and the MSM. Nope. They were reporting live that Trump made the meeting like it “was a f…firing squad”. They broke the confidentiality agreement to tell you how ‘brave that man is’: the Lone Ranger.

The important element to consider is that the message was sent across the media, no one detoured from the script. Consistency of message is key in the MSM’s fake news, as well as timing: They keep you hooked with a frenzied ‘report’ about ‘crazy Trump’ from the moment you wake up in the morning and for the next two days. Then it disappears. No one remembers that Trump met in secret with the media.

It is exactly what happened with Hillary Clinton’s emails: The media covered them 24/7 for one and a half-year. Then, on November 9, after they achieved the goal of defeating Clinton, the emails disappeared as if  by magic.

The public will remember the feeling of Trump going crazy that day trying to castigate the media into obedience. They will love him for it. But the details of that day…not registered in their minds. They will be oblivious of the fact that he and the “lying media” are working together behind the curtain to make sure the ‘deplorables‘ follow the script written by the owners of the MSM.

FAKE NEWS COOKED

The extraordinary events of November 21 and 22 were fake news and events. Faked was Trump’s tweeting ‘meltdown’. Faked was his ‘anger at the media’. Faked were the ‘live’ reports from “inside the private meetings” describing to you live how he was ‘killing them’. There is no way for you to corroborate that information, you must trust the lying media is telling you the truth. And since they all agreed in their reports, it must be true, doesn’t it? Isn’t that fantastic? You distrust the lying media but you trust the information they feed you is true.

Those two private meetings (the 21 and 22) were confidential, but the MSM wants you to believe they were willing to break their own interest in their own confidentiality. Fake was the ‘news’ that Trump himself got up at 6:31 Am to start a “storm” of tweets. On whose mind does it fit to believe that a man already in control of this nation will get up at that time to do that? Faked are the reports on the Donald’s ‘craziness’.

He is so ‘crazy’ that he is filling his cabinet with the top of the top of Wall Street, with racists and warmongers, all from the top of the elite world. The Murdocks and the Bezos of the MSM are not threatened by that craziness.

They are threatened by yours, for you did put the fear in their hearts. But now they control you. The media will accept being called the “lying media” as long as it serves the purpose of keeping Trump’s followers happy thinking that he is flagellating the “dishonest media”.

What matters is that Trump is putting the government in the hands of the most recalcitrant ultra-right-wingers, which is to say fascists, globalist and non-globalists alike.

The owners of the MSM, Murdock, Bezos, etc., are part of that elite. They belong to the class of men that will have no moral qualms to open ‘centers of detention’ for the ‘out of control’ angry voters threatening “the success of globalism”. To calm the angry voters, these elite will use the power of the media to manipulate the people’s emotions, to keep they distracted and entertained; to keep them angry and easily mobilized when needed. 

Welcome to the reality show presidency. The MSM and the elite will write the script for Trump. Just sit down and enjoy it. You may be called to be extras.

And follow the Fuhrer, please. He is courageous, he will demolish the dishonest media with his own brand of dishonesty.

Good luck out there, people.

 

Missing Hillary’s Emails and the New Lying Media

The mainstream media (MSM) drove the American voters to a frenzied Hillary-hating state of mind with its 24/7 emails reports since 2015 to the very last day of the elections. It culminated in her defeat by the Electoral College, and the installation as president of the other (by media ‘polls’) “less despised than Hillary Clinton” candidate, the first lewd president, Donald J.Trump.

There have been no more email stories since November 8. Mission accomplished!

That’s the political power of the media in action. It can keep you aroused for a whole year, and suddenly, you wake up…and it’s not there anymore. You go limp again. You don’t even remember you had it. Wow. Where did it go?!

The media decides which stories you read and tries to control how you  react to them. It keeps you busy when they need you active, and passive when they need you inactive. If you can’t see the power of the media in those two elements, the emails hysteria and Clinton’s defeat, you are at their mercy. Because it is clear that these elections were greatly decided  on the media manipulation of the emails story. The word ’email’ itself, during the elections, became code and synonym for ‘criminal Hillary’.

Did they work stealthy for Trump, and, if so, why, is a matter for another discussion. Today, it matters to know how is the media working with him now, after having help electing him president of the USA.

The new media frenzy, Trump tweeting about meeting and not-meeting  with the “lying and dishonest media” on November 21 and 22, gives us an idea of how the MSM will work with The Apprentice president to help him lead the people of this nation to support a fascist presidency. Trump’s presidency is already marred by him losing ‘bigly’ the popular vote. That his presidency lacks moral validity because the people rejected him is not even in question, it is a  FACT. This man has no right to be our president; that’s the feeling of the majority of the voters.

No president can justify the validity of his decisions on the people having  confidence in him when they voted against him. And the stability of the political status quo is automatically put on hold by the other angry people, the ones who were not initially angry, but now are because they were given a coup by the media. Yes, they know, even if only at gut level they know it: She lost on account of the 24/7 emails stories. The oligarchs are going to be needing  a whole LOT of media distraction to hold the people back for four long years. The oligarchy and its media have a vested interest in protecting Trump. And Trump needs the media and the oligarchs if he wants to avoid a coup d’etat.

The transcript of the meeting between The NY Times and Trump on November 22 gives us a hint of what distractions the media will be using to keep the angry people on check. As I will discuss in my next post, the emails may come back, the media will seek to make Hillary Clinton the sacrificial lamb, and continue to portray Trump as the ‘bad ass’ president lashing out at the ‘establishment’. Yes, the media and the oligarchy can tolerate a small amount of spit on their faces, but not too much. A “lying and dishonest media” was Trump’s code for propaganda media. A democracy can’t tolerate a hint that its mainstream media is truly propaganda. Trump has to make amends one way or the other. Have you noticed he is not calling them “lying media” anymore?

My next post I discuss how the media is preparing to work with Trump. I’ll leave you with the introduction.

The Apprentice President may be inexperienced on matters of government administration, but his expertise is on both MASS psychology and mass MEDIA

Armed with this knowledge and with the help of the owners of mass media in the US (they willingly gave him “billions of dollars’ worth in free press coverage”) he tricked half the American voters into voting for him.  Now, by the way he publicly managed his meeting with the nation’s mainstream media (MSM) owners Monday Nov. 21 and Tuesday Nov. 22, the Donald is showing us how he intends to run the presidency: As a ‘reality TV’ show. And the media is happy to oblige. That’s the topic of this post.

First, the Context

Winston Churchill once said “never let a good crisis go to waste”. That’s our modern oligarchs second golden rule, the first being “he who has the gold rules”.

And rule they will continue with the help of the Apprentice President, drawing out through him the benefits of this new millennium’s second political crisis. Oligarchs and conservatives with differing ideologies and bank accounts sizes are lining up to guide Donald and put their resources at his disposition. They are hoping to push their interests and agendas top of this administration by manipulating the new president’s profound and numerous personality flaws.

But we’re happy that he’s picking people who have that free market background, particularly because on many issues, he is a blank slate, so anybody with expertise is in an amazing position to shape his agenda.” On Trump surrounding himself with ultra-libertarian Kock brothers’ network members, at Politico. (All highlights and underlines by me throughout this post.)

But what crisis?’ you may be asking. Some globalists are defining it as the world-wide unrest of the minions – most significantly the American ones – provoked by the “success of globalism”. That much the oligarchs have admitted about their globalist project.

To be continued.

The Legend Of Donald J. Trump

This legend is woven with the picture the media, both MSM and Leftist, is giving the public of how Trump defeated Clinton. You are invited to create your own version and post it in the comment section. If it is really good, I’ll post it as ‘guest post’.

The Legend Of Donald J. Trump

Once upon a time, believe me, there was an amazing country, amazing. It was the shining beacon of the free market, or as its people used to call it, of the free world. Its citizens were all winners by birth, enjoying their great way of life. They had free elections and free leaders, fantastic real estate and bigly mortgaged homes. Sometimes they wished their leaders were billionaires, actually, they wanted billionaire leaders; but not that much for a while because their nation, they called it America, was a great nation in that way.

But these happy citizens were not aware of the silent plague that had silently been destroying, destroying for the last eight years, folks, their amazing way of life. It was devastating it, badly. They didn’t even know it was happening. But it was happening, folks, believe me.

emails

Happy citizens unaware of the email plague.

Eating their way of life was a plague of illegal emails, okay? These illegals were criminals and rapists; they were hiding in private but illegal servers (coyote-servers you could call them). But they were illegal servers, folks, or so I was told.

These illegals were turning the people into deplorable angry voters. They were so angry; you won’t believe how angry they were. Or how deplorable. Sad.

Angry voters battling each other due to the effects of illegal emails and globalists viruses.

These really bad illegal emails were difficult to detect because they couldn’t be detected without the intervention of the FBI and a weird-looking, albino-looking Australian, and they both had to wait to the presidential elections to realize the plague was there.

Subclass of heroes: Assange and FBI’s own Comey. They helped our hero achieve the impossible by dumping vacuous emails into the population.

The illegals, smart as they are, kept changing status from ‘classified’ to ‘declassified’ to hide in the community with the legal and hard-working emails, taking their jobs too. Dangerous. It shouldn’t have happened, but their non-classy leaders were weak. They allowed China take advantage of them and their people. Can you believe that? I can because they are stoopid leaders.

Anyway, there was nothing the FBI or the scientists could do about the illegals because they couldn’t read the illegals’ DNA code; the code was incomplete, no one knew what was inside the emails. All they could read was inane information, no smoking gun there. But they kept trying to find that gun, publishing their emails reports in the MSM 24/7 since January.

The source of the illegal emails was a mean woman, an old evil feminist woman, a sick woman, seriously. She was crooked-Hillary, you can’t believe how crooked she was. She should be in jail. Anyone who lets illegal emails in should be in jail. I will build a wall against illegal emails. Watch me. And Mexico is going to pay for the wall. They will, believe me.

Anyway, they couldn’t find the smoking gun because the crooked feminist woman (she was scary, folks) kept taking their gun away. She wanted to take their Second Constitutional Amendment too. What a nasty woman.

But then, something amazing happened, amazing and bigly.  A truly great leader, the kind the people really really wanted, appeared in their primaries. He was tall and orange, but his followers didn’t notice he was orange because they immediately fell in love him. He was devastatingly good with words. He told his folks he was a billionaire named Donald J. Trump, although he never showed them his tax filings to confirm his claim.

Nice skin color.

Donald, that great people’s hero, knew how to talk to the deplorable angry voters. He was tremendous. He diagnosed their problem: globalism, corrupt politicians and emails. The angry voters cheered his bravery and fairness, because he had both. Donald said things “the way they are”, fearlessly. He bravely bullied and slayed 16 of his early enemies with kind words, the kind of words that would shame you into your corner. And he insulted everybody equally, he didn’t discriminate. He insulted women as well as the physically disabled, blacks, Latinos, military families…even his own followers. He was a great man, great, GREAT fair man. A tremendous leader.

Legendary people’s hero, Donald J. Trump, mocking a person with disabilities.

Donald the hero told them he was their voice and that only he can fix their problems. They believed in him with the power of their shared conviction that conspiracy theories are true. He confirmed his fears for them.

So our hero Donald worked his way through the presidential elections to face the people’s enemy: the evil feminist person. She was tougher to defeat than the other 15 men and a woman he slayed in the primaries. She was conning, a trickster experienced in manipulation of the media people, and forced them to attack our hero. They accused Donald of so many bad things, all of them lies. They even accused him of being a pussy-grabber. Incredible. Sad.

No one believed he could defeat the nasty old woman, but he did. That’s what makes this country great, that the corrupt media and establishment actually gave him the presidency. He defeated that crooked woman, oh yes he did. How did he achieve this amazing, terrific feat? He was great, that’s how. And she was horrible, I mean, horrendous.

He defeated her because he was smart, he “rewrote the rules” and “trusted his instincts”. Donald was an outsider, which was a good thing because it meant  he was not a politician. True, he bragged about buying them, but that never bothered anyone. There was a lot, but a LOT of energy on his camp, he was high energy. Social media followed him; he won because “he had more tweeter followers than she had”. He understood the white-collar working class men. He related to his followers, and they related back to him. It was wonderful. He appealed to the deplorables because Donald is a billionaire and businessman; Hillary was none of those. Not one big business or media people supported him, but that was a good thing too for him; it showed his courage and that he was not bought by the lying media.

Crooked-Hillary was defeated by him because she was a woman. She focused on Identity Politics, race  women’s issues. She was more untrustworthy than our hero. She was a liar and crook. She voted for the Iraq war and had bad judgment. She was careless. She was boring, low energy and there was no enthusiasm for her. Women didn’t like Hillary. She didn’t care about white-collar men workers. She lost because she was old and too tired to campaign in the rust-belt states. Despite her experience in politics and government, she ran a terrible campaign.

The media people, the MSM, didn’t like her; they tried to help Donald by publicizing horrible ‘truths’ about her: how dishonest she was at heart, that no one liked her, corrupt and prone to mistakes on her favor. But they all endorsed her as the most qualified candidate because she had them by the balls. Nasty woman. But ultimately, she lost because the emails came back to bite her in the coo coo. The FBI found more emails and dumped them a few days before the elections, causing her to lose votes. Then the Electoral College gave her the coup d’ Grace.

And so it was that from November 9 on, despite Hillary receiving over 2 million more votes than our great hero, Donald, the media tells us that he defeated her. True, if it weren’t for the Electoral College our hero would have lost bigly, it would have been a defeat of historical proportions.

But that doesn’t matter now. What matters now to the media is that he defeated her, he triumphed and conquered her. They will  not write that he won despite the majority of the people not wanting nor loving him. The myth that everybody hated her and no one trusted her was debunked by 2 millions more votes for her than for Donald. High schools history books will teach that our hero was elected president by the love the people had for him and because of his great presidential campaign.

The legend of Donald J. Trump will go to history as the triumph of the one  who lost, and the loss of the one who won. That is quite an achievement and deserves to be in the annals of best modern myths.

 

 

 

 

Democrats and Sanders’ Revolt Against Democratic Voters And Move To The GOP

Note: This is an extract from the post title above, and comes from my new blog. Check the RSS to “take you there“, as Madonna used to sing. I hope you visit and ‘follow’ my inartfully expressed but interesting political observations. Hey, in the new Age of the Egomaniac President, we can now shamelessly praise ourselves. So there. Now go and check that wonderful new blog.

Thank you for visiting.

Sanders and Democrats To Oppose Hillary Clinton at the Electoral College

Yesterday, Politico published this article about the “Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump”, but it is a revolt against the voters in their own party.

At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

That quote, unqualified, seems a noble and brave effort from these ‘democratic electors’ to uphold democracy by trying to honor the wishes of the people of their own party who voted in historical numbers for their party candidate, Hillary Clinton.

What they are actually trying to do is unthinkable. To avoid the appearance that I’m misinterpreting the facts, I quote directly from the article.

The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

…But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

Looks like Sanders and his supporters are not going to be happy until they see Hillary Clinton (HC) dead or in prison. Who could be “encouraging” Democrats to vote against fellow Democrat and winner of the popular vote, HC, but Sanders and his supporters?

First, what is the logic here? How is it that, knowing that the Republicans are not going to ‘unelect‘ Trump, the only way they see to “erode the confidence in the Electoral College is by opposing the person who suffered the unfairness of that political body, i.e., the candidate who despite getting the most votes was denied the presidency?

 

History Is Written By The Victors, And Sanders Takes Dictation. The Making of The Myth Of Trump’s Victory

Winston Churchill supposedly said that history is written by the victors, but the history of this presidential election cycle will be written by the candidate rejected by the people, Trump. And right there starts the problem of how this history will be read in the future. Does it matter? I think it does; it matters a lot.

wapo

Washington Post. It was a “success”, historic in a positive way; no mention that he was rejected by the people.

And The Winner Is…

The books on political history of the USA that will be used in high schools 50 years from now  might as well start with the statement that on November 8 2016 Donald J Trump won the presidential election over a woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton; end of sentence, then pass to discuss his ‘legacy’. The rest of the story can be ignored in the same way that many inconvenient historical facts are ignored.

But the results of these elections are pretty complicated, aren’t they? How and who decided who won? Answer, the impersonal ‘electoral college’ (EC). What’s the purpose of the EC?

Although the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have a say, there was concern that a charismatic tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come into power. Alexander Hamilton briefly addressed these concerns in the Federalist Papers. The idea was that the electors would be a group of people who would ensure that a qualified person would become president.

Funny thing is that in 2016, not only they dismissed the will of the people who voted by overwhelming majority for the candidate they and her opponents considered “the most qualified”; the members of the EC  elected as president the candidate that even the members of his own party considered “unqualified”, and the kind of populist tyrant the Fathers had in mind when they put that atrocious EC in the Constitution.

When the people in the electoral college dismiss the will of the people and DICTATE that the presidency will go to someone unqualified and unfit to be president, violating in that way their Constitutional mandate, I submit to you, that is a coup d’etat. And there were Democrats in the EC who stated publicly, before the elections, that they would not accept the people’s will and will vote against Hillary.

The danger in this situation is that, to clean up the evidence of a ‘coup‘, two myth are being created as we speak: the myth that Trump ‘defeated’ Hillary Clinton, and the myth that Hillary Clinton, not only lost and was defeated (a word that conjures images of physical violence), but her loss was of her own making because what caused her defeat was not really the electoral colleges but her “neglect” of the “needs of white blue-collar working men”.  Implied in the ‘Hillary myth’ is the code that if Trump becomes a tyrant and the people suffer his tyranny, it will all be Hillary’s fault for being, as Sanders called her, “a shitty candidate”. That much the Leftists have  been saying, and it is consistent with their year-long campaign of blaming Hillary for all the evils of the world.

After stealing the elections and blaming her for what is yet to come, the next step is to ‘fix’ Hillary’s ‘egregious’ neglect of white voters; the GOP, Sanders and the Democrats will be supporting policies to ‘correct’ the economic pain of those white GOP blue-collar workers. More on this and the myths below.

Thus, the presidency was not won, the president was not elected by the people. Technically speaking Trump won, but he also won in what is perceived by 3/4 of the people of the planet, in an undemocratic fashion.

And The Losers Are…

This is where Sanders, members of the Democratic party, and the American Left (AL) enter this discussion.

The presidency was stolen from Hillary Clinton, but the people of the USA and democracy were the HUGE losers. 

That’s the big difference that we can’t let the First Lewd President, Trump, and his gang of deplorables ignore when they write their history.

The problem is that, not only Trump and his coterie of Pinochets are repeating the lie that he won, but that  the media, MSM and Leftist, Sanders, members of the Democratic party and the AL, they are all repeating that Hillary lost.

That the American Left and Democrats and Sanders, all supposedly lovers of freedom and democracy, are willing to ignore the fact that the big losers here were the people and the American democracy, is less offensive than how they are doing it.

These false prophets of the working class are joining Trump and his gang of deplorables to construct TWO myths:

  1. That Hillary lost, and phrased positively for Trump, that Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Words matter, people. Repeat constantly, as Sanders and the Left are doing without qualifying it, that Trump defeated ‘that woman’, and you have history written by the losers.

2. Sanders and the Left’s discourse is that all of the catastrophe that is about to land on us is Hillary Clinton’s fault, that her ‘evilness’ and ‘incompetence’ is what brought this debacle of an administration on us. The mantra that Hillary is not credible continues when everybody jumps at her for saying that the last week of emails did her in. The vociferous Sanders and Leftists and the media shouts at her that she lost because…she didn’t care about white collar workers, she cared only for WS…you name it, it is NEVER that the elections were undemocratic and stolen from the people. That has disappeared from the conversation.

The Danger Within The Myth: Racism as Policy

That she ‘lost’ because she ignored the white blue-collar men of the GOP is racist Identity Politics (IP) in action; blaming her for the actions of the electoral colleges – giving Trump the presidency – because of race identities. The triumph of Trump’s racist call to protect the economic rights of white-men is now supported by Sanders and the Left and his mostly white Bernies. They are now “looking to work” with Trump to make this a national policy priority: pacify the deplorables who want their needs above the rest of the people of this nation. It turns the GOP into a Nationalist Socialist German Party (NAZI); just delete ‘German‘ and insert ‘American.’

This is why Identity Politics is anathema to the GOP, the oligarchs, the conservatives and the American Left and Sanders, because it can be used by them to protect white privileges, but denies the “others” non-white the right to fight against those racist policies: “it’s class, stupid, not race” shouted Leftist CounterPunch magazine the other day. By denying that they are using IP, anyone who denounces it is then labeled by them a racist against white people.

Identity Politics is a term that shows who is getting what and who is not getting it. This is what unchallenged Identity Politics looks like:

Identity Politics: No need to be concerned about it.

Finally, no where is there on that side of the deplorables (Sanders and the Left included in the ‘deplorables’) an ounce of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. Men ganging on her with viciousness and hatred, because it is mostly men the ones accusing her of losing the presidency, to accuse her of not being caring for the needs of the white racists.

I invite you to challenge every time you find it this narrative that Hillary lost and Trump ‘defeated her’.

Trump’s win might best be seen as the success of the U.S.’s first independent president WaPo

Sanders et al traitors of the American people have joined Trump and are excited about working with him. Since February I have talking here about Sanders and the Left and how they have become intellectually and ideologically corrupt. They have proved me right.

Please, don’t let the coup that was perpetrated on us to be written as ‘the will of the people’.

(As always, I write with an ESL ‘accent’. Please, forgive the bad grammar and composition.)

Let’s Face It: It’s Beyond Trump Now

By this time, you are probably wearing that Munch face day-in-and-day-out. I call it ‘the face after reading to whom Trump is handing the keys to our Federal government.’

The menace to our democratic society now comes from the white dudes surrounding Trump.

The Apprentice President knows shit about running a NATION, so he is relying on ‘advisers’. Already knowing all needed to be known about le petite-Mussolini, we know that, right at this moment, these experienced and extreme-right wing advisers are buffing Trump’s ego to get nominated by him. That’s all you need to do to get El Duce‘s attention: buff that ego spotless, baby.

Funny thing is, even comrade Sanders is vying for attention from ‘el lider‘:

ego

Let me be clear — I happen to think that Donald Trump is a very smart person, and he would not have been elected president if he were not a very smart person.” Sanders said.

“The evidence is pretty clear,” Sanders continued, “that when you lose the White House in a campaign against a gentleman [WTF, Sanders?]

Trump doesn’t know many of these people; they have been suggested to him by the DEPLORABLES in the GOP (their elite, i.e.), by divided conservatives, and by the owners of this nation: the oligarchs (name them, please),and Murdock and the elite conservative MSM.

He knows what he wants, he is not ‘innocent’ nor a victim. But, at the same time, he is extremely malleable. If there was an ounce of good intentions in this man’s heart, rest assure that, by now, it has been obliterated.

This s the dangerous scenario that Hillary Clinton was warning us about,  where a man, inexperienced and psychologically unfit to be president,  will be manipulated by the D.C. weasels.

The big problem we have is that the white dudes in the (R.I.P.) Democratic party are marching towards this modern Nazi government.

Angry Voter, where are Thou?

If you believe that the Democratic party is the party of WS and voted against them, where is your outrage now? I know where: Waiting for that alpha-male paternal figure you see in Trump, and whom you elected, to deliver the lies.

Bernies and white ‘progressives’ and the zombie Left: you DID vote for him. Come out of the fascist closet.

 

 

From New Republic: The Democrats’ Craven Response to Donald Trump

This article is more ‘classy’ in addressing the issue I have discussed here on my previous three or four posts: That the Dems have taken their masks off and shown their true face.  And yet, the author is less ‘radical’ in that all he is asking is for Dems to demand Trump ‘apologizes’ for all the insults he dished during the elections. My point has been that Dems should NOT work with Trump at all. Trump by himself can do no harm. It is in the fascist Cabinet he is assembling where the danger resides. So, asking for apologies is useless.

 

The Democrats’ Craven Response to Donald Trump

Democratic lawmakers want to make nice with the new president. This is both short-sighted and cowardly.

 

Not ten days out from the election of a man that they called “unfit” for office—who is expected to assume the presidency despite currently losing the popular vote by 1.4 million votes (a number expected to grow)—and congressional Democrats are doing what they do best: acquiescing. They are trying to find “common ground” with the person who said he would prosecute his opponent if he were to win the election. A man currently involved in 75 pending lawsuits, one of which involves allegations of child rape. The candidate who openly asked Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Who made fun of a reporter with disabilities. Who never released his tax returns. I could go on.

According to The New York Times, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and several other Democratic leaders want to take a different tack from the congressional Republicans who executed a strategy of near total obstruction during President Barack Obama’s administration—to great effect. Instead, Democrats are seeking areas in which Democrats and the president-elect will be able to work together: infrastructure spending, mandated paid maternity leave, ending tax breaks on hedge funds, etc. No less a progressive than Bernie Sanders said that if Trump “keeps his promises” that he will be “ready to work with him.” (One hopes there are several promises of Trump’s that Bernie doesn’t want him to keep.)

On the surface this seems reasonable: Why not work with Trump to move forward a few Democratic priorities? Furthermore, offering Trump incentives to work across the aisle could create a wedge between him and congressional Republicans, who may be forced into making uncomfortable choices on these issues. Trump has also shown a pathological need for praise and attention: His love affair with Vladimir Putin seems to stem from some early (and likely mistranslated) praise from the Russian authoritarian. Telling Trump he has good ideas and that they want to work with him will probably earn Democrats a few brownie points.

Were this a normal election, with a middle-of-the-road conservative Republican about to assume the presidency, this might be a defensible strategy. But with this Republican, and at this precise moment, this approach seems like dangerous folly. The bulk of Hillary Clinton’s campaign involved trying to convince the American people that Trump was a danger to America, an unstable, unprepared, intellectually uncurious narcissist who also happens to hate immigrants and women. Might it be possible, then, that some of the 63 million of us who voted for her actually believe these things, and are not quite ready for this quick about-face towards compromise? Are these Washington insiders paying any attention to the national mood lately? Do they not see how many protests are happening every day, and how many more are being planned? Are they so out of touch?

To so many Democrats like myself, any mention of finding common ground with Trump is a step towards accomplishing the exact thing we fear most: normalization. And this is precisely what cannot happen after a campaign as ugly as Trump’s. We reject the idea that what we just experienced was somehow acceptable, just “politics”—that the things he said, that the way he conducted himself in his campaign, and that the people he has surrounded himself with, can be forgiven and forgotten. Many of us are not ready, and may never be. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote looks to be four times Al Gore’s in the 2000 election—excuse us for still questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s election, even if we eventually must accept it. Excuse us for not being so ready to dive into what many of us fear will be the worst presidency of our lifetimes.

It’s also unclear what long-term benefit congressional Democrats expect from forging deals with Trump. Need they be reminded, for instance, that Obama practically begged Republicans for increased infrastructure spending every year and they consistently refused him? And who ended up getting the blame for a lackluster recovery from the Great Recession? Obama, not Republicans. Similarly, if Democrats secure an infrastructure spending package with President Trump, it is the Republicans who stand to benefit from any economic gains—who will be in a position to go into 2020 with something to brag about. Democrats will not get any credit for these kinds of compromises.

Furthermore, the Democratic attempts to differentiate between aspects of Trump’s platform—offering Trump consensus on some economic issues, while drawing a line in the sand on cultural ones like racism, bigotry, etc.—is astonishingly naïve. White working class voters weren’t ignorant of Trump’s manifest vulgarity, or his odious stances on immigrants. They heard the Access Hollywood tape. They knew it all—likely they just didn’t care. If Trump delivers to them on their pocketbook issues, they will stick with him. They will not flock to the Democrats.

It appears that only Harry Reid is getting the Democratic response right. Until Trump offers his apologies on the patently toxic campaign he ran, until he shows that he is capable of admitting just how much trauma and hate he has inflicted upon our country, Democrats should offer no olive branches.

By prematurely offering to work with Trump before he has shown even the slightest bit of contrition—before he has even filled out his sure-to-be controversial cabinet—congressional Democrats are hollowing out the argument they made for months. He is unfit for office, and that is precisely the argument that needs to be made—now more than ever. Gallup’s first favorability ratings for our new president-elect are far and away the worst in the firm’s history. It is up to Trump to prove to us that he is able to lead. We shouldn’t make it easy for him.

 

Trusting the Trump Brand, Or ‘The Cruz-ification of Sanders And The Democratic Party’

“This is not trust,” Sanders argued. “We’re not here to trust [her, i.e.]. It is the very opposite of what I am saying: To say, oh sit back, elect Clinton and then trust.”

“No,” he continued. “Mobilize. Educate. Fight.”

Yeap. That was fiery revolutionary Sanders telling his Bernies that he had  no trust on ‘that woman’, and, ergo, they should mobilize against her and disrupt her administration, assuming, as everybody did, that she was going to win.

Because words do matter, contrast that with post-elections ‘Cruz-ified‘ Sanders:

“We look forward to working with him 

Let me be clear — I happen to think that Donald Trump is a very smart person, and he would not have been elected president if he were not a very smart person.” Sanders said.

“The evidence is pretty clear,” Sanders continued, “that when you lose the White House in a campaign against a gentleman [WTF, Sanders?]

And, Sanders added, that if Trump… fight to stop countries from moving overseas,he will have an ally with me.

cruzified

‘Mr. President, you are a gentleman and my man. Can I now be in your Cabinet with Putin? He’s my hero too!’

First, the obvious. Sanders has Trump in yuuuge high esteem, as compared to his feelings towards Hillary, which where of utter hatred and dislike. Trump as a “gentleman”? C’mon! Even after the presidency was stolen from her, he hasn’t had a kind word for her.

Sanders has dropped, as he dropped the ‘socialist’ early in his campaign, the call to the Bernies to “mobilize”. Sanders doesn’t want them to mobilize now against the USURPER; he wants them to wait until he decides that Trump is a fascist, which may never happen. He is the Saintly leader, they must wait for his call.

And, finally, Sanders continues the Leftists’  psy ops of reinforcing the lie that Trump won the elections. He didn’t. He lost by over a million votes. We all know that the politicians in the electoral colleges acted against the will of the people they are supposed to represent. But that is an inconvenient truth for Sanders and the other Hillary-haters. Instead of denouncing the theft, they deny it and congratulates the beneficiary of the theft. Thus, for him to say that Trump “won the elections” because he is “intelligent” is not only a lie, it shows how low Sanders can crawl when it comes to begging for crumbs. Using a Trumpism, “sad”.

Secondly, did you notice that unqualified, mysterious phrase “and fight to stop countries from moving overseas? You know what that means, don’t you? Moving from overseas to HERE, that’s what it means. Sanders is supporting Trump’s racist immigration policies; the wall and anti-Muslims is what it means. That’s the art of deceptive political language. This makes him a crass hypocrite and liar. There’s your saintly leader.

The Dems Become Ted Cruz

Interesting factoid: So far, it has been mostly white men in the Democratic party who have come forward and bowed to the King. These are the same people who, during the primaries and the elections trashed Trump as fascist (except Sanders, of course, who was more gentle in his ‘attacks’). Now, not only they don’t think he is a fascist, now they trust him. All those signs and features of the fascist ideology they saw in him… gone by the magic of the allured of presidential powers. They want a piece of the Trump action.

What Is Left? The Right.

Now, what do we have here? We have men of all colors and nationalities in Congress and in the Left supporting Trump. They will use the power of the media (MSM and Leftists’) to shout the reasons why you must trust them and Trump. They will do as Sanders did in that quote, use unclear language to cover up racist and misogynist messages. Propaganda is its name.

The only thing that matters to Congress and the Left is the well-being of white male workers, and of the conservatives and globalists. It’s not mindless attack on them. They have been talking about making the Dem party cater to and  ‘lifting’ the white workers. These men are not interested in women’s or ‘identity’ issues, are they?

Sanders will make peace with Trump and his class interests because you didn’t see his voting record. Had you seen it, you would have seen him becoming a Trump Apologist.

What was left after November 8 was a Democratic party in the process of being cannibalized by men in power struggle to position themselves in Congress as beneficiaries of Trump’s loco administration. They are shedding their ‘democratic’ garb for a more fitting ‘national socialist’ one, you know, the Nazi party.

I posted a comment here about how America would be turning to the extreme right after Hillary won the elections as a consequence of the GOP, the Left and Sanders attacking her administration.

Now it is clear that we have made that turn. The Dems have joined the GOP and Trump. Class unity is a done deal for the oligarchs and conservatives and the ‘Nationalist Socialist Party’ ideology represented by ‘independent’ Sanders and the Left.

I leave you with this question:

When have you seen the conservatives, the capitalists and the globalists unite to be allies of the working class, of women, of people of color?

Bernies and The Left At A Crossroad: Support Trump’s ‘Brand’ of Peace or Attack His Racism?

Donald Trump looks and talks like the ugly, racist, bullying American — and he is exactly that, but he hasn’t killed anybody yet, and his public statements have been of a far more peaceful nature than the woman he beat at the polls. Black Agenda Report “War Less Imminent After Clinton Defeat “

Mine is no idle attack on the Left.

That quote up there has been the mantra of the American Left all along: The First Lewd President is pro-peace because he likes Putin. Notice also  the hatred of Clinton, “the woman he beat”. Can’t even call her by her name; they have reduced her to the lowest level of humanity: a ‘woman’. Sounds very Islamist, doesn’t it? Oh, but the Left is not misogynist.

When you set your mind to believe something, you won’t see anything else. True, that applies to everybody, but we are talking about politics and lives here.

The Left wants to see Trump as a pacifist, so they do. They want to see Hillary as beaten in the elections, which she wasn’t because she won the popular vote by over a million votes now, but they continue to perpetuate the lie that Trump defeated her. He didn’t; even he was surprised at the outcome. I believe he was genuinely surprised.

As I have been saying all along on this blog (and now they prove I was right all along), the Left has endorsed and, worse, extolled Trump as a pacifist. These ‘Marxists’ can’t get more deluded than that, can they? They can’t see in the people he is assigning for his cabinet that Trump is fascist; or maybe they can see it but prefer to look to the other side.

These people are going to support Trump’s foreign policies; they have given him a blank check to work with Putin in exchange of ignoring his racists policies at home.

It’s Not Idle Attacks On The Left

Some of the few readers of this blog may think that I’m focusing too much on the American Left, but you should keep an eye on them too.

They have means of persuasion, their online ‘think-tanks’ that propagated among Bernies, ‘progressives’ and unsuspecting rank and file Leftists, the elitist media message that Hillary Clinton (HC) is ‘corrupt’ and ‘dishonest’. The Bernies followed some of these people, they followed the Bernies.

That message of Hillary-hating was effective, they kept removing votes from her; she could have won by a decisive amount of votes from the beginning of the counting process, making it more difficult for the traitors at the electoral colleges to steal the presidency from her.

And they have crossed the ideological barrier to side with Trump; so expect them to go the mile for him. Theirs is no lazy support; they are actively working for him.

Trump’s Call for the Left to Join Him Was Answered

Trump used the Bernies and the Left to keep the race tight. He used Sanders’ tactics of misogyny and character assassination, he used the Bernies and thanked them for helping him on attacking HC. He even INVITED them to join him. Many of them did, voted for him, and the Left will continue supporting him. It’s not idle antipathy for them, they are dangerous to non-white Americans.

“It’s class, stupid, not race” [Counter Punch Mag]

Identity Politics (IP) is being used in the way Hitler did, to protect the interests of white male working class. This time IP is denied, but the result is the same: a focus on the economic problems of white America.

They and Sanders are destroying the democratic party ‘as the party of Wall Street’. That leaves you with, what? With a party that believes that you are ‘stupid’ if you think that the interests of non-whites and non-males are important.

id

The result of fascist brand of Identity Politics. “It’s class, stupid, not race” As with ‘climate change’, deny Identity Politics at your own risk.

By the time the progressives wake up from their masculine dream, it will be too late for them to see that they were supporting a mirage. The male fear of women in power is gone, they are safe in their male world with ultra-alpha man Trump protecting their masculinity.

The only real progressives and Leftists in America today are those who supported Hillary Clinton. We need to stay together and keep an eye on those who betrayed us in the name of male and white supremacy.

 

A Date That Will Live In Infamy: The Winners In the Presidential Elections Are The White Working Class Men and The Oligarchy

A date that will live in infamy: On election day Hillary Clinton won the elections but lost the presidency. It was an INSTANTANEOUS coup d’etat.

I can’t imagine how this courageous woman feels after winning TWICE by popular vote and seeing her victory snatched from her hands by a cabal of men and the oligarchy. It happened last week and in 2008. Obama knows how it happened, ask him.

And to pour salt on her wound (and ours), the same political criminals that perpetrated this atrocity, including the Left, are blaming her for her ‘lose’.

As I have discussed in this inartful blog, the Left is putting the blame on ‘feminists Mame’. They have declared that it was her beating that dead horse of women’s issues

A second and relatively weak card Democrats played was conjuring up an Imaginary Hillary Clinton, a defender of womens’ and human rights who held hands with The moms of killer cop victims

what lost her the presidency.

Will The Left Get New Lenses to Correct Their Myopia?

I have stated in various posts that one of the Left’s most appalling blemishes is their inability to practice a modicum of self-assessment. And they continue to be as intellectually and ideologically dishonest as ever.

They will not correct their error of claiming that Hillary lost, they will continue to blame her for the coup perpetrated on her.

They will not correct the lie that it was her feminist agenda that tanked her. The Left is anti-feminist, PERIOD. So don’t expect them taking a look at their own brand of misogyny.

They will continue to spread the lie that Hillary is corrupt, a liar and the most distrusted candidate ever. That’s why she ‘lost’, isn’t it? Hillary-hating is alive and well, thanks for not asking.

They will continue to ignore the fact that winning the popular vote means that the true progressives in this country (which I declare exclude the Left, Sanders and his followers) were in favor of her inclusionary Identity Politics, and rejected the Left’s mantra that only class issues matter.

They will continue, despite the electoral results, to push their anti-identity-politics agenda.

And they will join Trump and the oligarchy in pacifying the white male working class in the same way that Hitler did: white men will receive all the benefits, literally and figuratively, and the rest of us will be pushed violently to the sides. This the Left is already doing. You can roam through their websites and see them clamoring  for protecting the white working class that voted for Trump. How dared that ‘evil feminist woman’ put women’s issues in parity with that of white men?

The American Left is definitely a zombie Left. You know what a zombie is, don’t you? They are a brainless and heartless unnatural creature trying to bring the living humans to their hellish underworld.

We need a revolution that will sweep away the scum of the earth that is the American Left.

 

The Silver Bullet That Fell ‘President Hillary Clinton’ And Democracy: Fascist Anti-Feminism

A second and relatively weak card Democrats played was conjuring up an Imaginary Hillary Clinton, a defender of womens’ and human rights who held hands with The moms of killer cop victims,..”America Might Not Deserve Trump, But Dems and Hillary Deserved To Lose” by managing editor Bruce A. Dixon [at Black Agenda Report (BAR) Wed, 11/09/2016 ]

Anti-feminism (misogyny) is in your face, you just don’t know how to recognize it. And so is with fascism, which today, as in the past, is present in BOTH the extremes right and left. You may have noticed that during and after the elections the media (both MSM and Leftists’) have refused to label Trump as a ‘fascist’; they are leisurely willing to postpone judgment on him until, I don’t know, his third term?

It is no coincidence that both the right and the left voters are willing to ignore the signs of fascism in front of them. As it is no coincidence that Hillary Clinton won two campaigns by popular vote but lost the big prize on both (2008 primaries and this presidential elections). I don’t buy that it was bad luck or bad campaign management.

hillary

This is how the American Left sees Hillary Clinton, as opposed to how they see Trump in the image below.

They see Trump as the hero who will ‘kill Netanyahu’ with “kindness”. They have high hopes on this man’s ‘humanity’, which they didn’t have for that ‘evil feminist woman’. Also, notice the article pointed at by the small arrow; it is relevant to the conversation further down.

In this presidential election cycle, the Left ditched the experienced woman with a progressive record for the totally inexperienced, unqualified and unfit to serve, proud of being a scheming elitist, openly racist, hate-monger lewd alpha-male billionaire who has done nothing for anyone except for himself and his family, creates homelessness as part of his business and profits from promoting compulsive gambling…because he speaks ‘anti-globalism‘. They even preferred the other white racist and ignoramus Libertarian Party dude (Garry Johnson) over her. It can’t be that they are voting for ethical and moral candidates over her.

(The Left here are the ‘leaders’ of the socialist and communist groups and their online ‘think-tanks’, like Black Agenda Report, Counter Punch, Workers Party, Information Clearing House, OpEd News; and Sanders supporters and some people in the BLM and other progressives who became Hillary-haters and, what I call, Trump Apologists. I exclude from my criticism of the Left the people at The Nation magazine because they were the only group that refused to jump to Trump’ swamp as his admirers. They notably wrote an article few days before the election titled ‘Hillary Clinton is not the enemy”, for which they got a lot of flack from the Trumpist leftists.)

In this post I will try to show

  1. Where the misogyny/anti-feminism was in these elections,
  2. That it is one of the three most obvious characteristics of fascism, and
  3. What the new millennium Left has in common with fascist ideologies.

I do not say nor believe that the Left is purposely fascist. My point all along this election cycle has been that their own misogyny (anti-feminism) and poverty of  political analysis has caused them to lose their ideological bearings, getting dangerously close to a modern full-blown fascism. Also, that their inability to practice a modicum of personal and political self-assessment keeps them blinded to their ideological errors and useless to the working class they claim to advocate for.

I will start the discussion with the third point.

Hidden Affinities Between The Left And Fascism

Fascism, as with everything in this life, is not without internal contradictions. When the understanding of the history and psychology of this ideology is not clear, it is easy to see as ‘revolutionary’ that which in reality the manifestation of contradictions in fascism.

I propose that these unnoticed contradictions in the practice of fascism is what attracts the unsuspecting Leftists. This leads me to believe that the millennial progressives who supported Trump and Libertarian (of all ideologies, for crying out loud) Party’s Garry Johnson (and they were many) over Hillary Clinton are ideologically untrained; and that the aging Bolshevist Leftists, most of whom voted as the young inexperienced  millennials, have devolved their intellectual power to the lowest confines of the American white-working class.

Hitler Running for President

If Adolf Hitler were to show up today and run for president, the Left would support him over Hillary Clinton.

Because, based on his pseudo-anti-globalism positions, they view Trump as a ‘revolutionary’ and ‘friend’ of the (white) working class, they would also find candidate Hitler to be revolutionary because he was anti-capitalist.

Hitler was an ultra–nationalist conservative, and as such he hated anything or anyone who would put their interests above that of the nation. Capitalism and globalism are those things. But then he realized that he needed the capitalists to quash the labor, socialist, ethnic and feminist movements (the ‘others’), which he accused of putting their unclean interests over that of the nation’s.

Capitalists and globalists can make peace with Fascists because, ultimately, they have the same interest: suppressing freedom and democracy, and preserving the patriarchy.

The Left would have been heads-over-heels with Hitler for creating a ‘third party’ with the name National Socialist German [American] Workers’ Party. Interesting historical note: Hitler intentionally put ‘socialist’ in the name to make his group palatable to the working class because they were strongly attracted to the economic reforms socialists were achieving. But Hitler himself detested socialism.

So, or ‘thus’, the American Left would have flock to this ‘socialist’ party just as they flocked to Bernie Sanders because, in the beginning of the primaries, Sanders was running as a ‘socialist’. But he did  the opposite of what Hitler did. Sanders, faced with a MSM which conditioned coverage of his campaign on him dropping the ‘socialist’, fled from ‘socialism’. BY March/April, the MSM was covering him as a “progressive” or a ‘social democrat’, depending on their clicks needs, and refused to vet his Congressional voting record. Ultimately, capitalists and pseudo socialists have the same interests.

Of Conservatives, Paleo-conservatives and Fascists

The point I’m trying to make is that the Left’s ideological deficiency doesn’t allow them to see that even Conservatives, paleo-conservatives and other brands of conservatism, are anti-globalists; but that doesn’t make them revolutionaries nor does it make them automatic allies of the labor movement or of the ‘others‘ in the Identity Politics crowd. On the contrary.

The Left is (willfully?) oblivious to the fact that, like they, Fascism not only doesn’t challenge the patriarchy ideology, it promotes it. The Nazi party message of its goal for German economic supremacy was directed exclusively to the white-male workers; women’s place was not in the ‘market’. In 1934, Hitler told the women in the Nazi party that there was no room for the ‘battle of the sexes’ in the party. The American Left would have been happy with that program.

And they would have been mesmerized with Hitler’s manly authoritarian personality, just as they are with Trump’s. But they would have also been mesmerized with the other alpha-male authoritarian fascist, Stalin, who also challenged capitalism but was a fascist in heart and spirit.

I have tried to show how, in my view, the American Left has lost its ideological bearings, coming dangerously close to supporting Fascist ideological stances out of ignorance.  MSM (which represents the interests of the oligarchy) have made a supremely efficient use of propaganda symbols and codes to attack Trump (a member of the elite conservative class) over issues that divide them without putting their own class on the chopping-block, and attacking Hillary Clinton for being a feminist threatening the patriarchy.

Make no mistake, the oligarchy is divided, and so is the conservative elite over how to attack each other without empowering the ‘others’. Either one who wins the elections is in danger of receiving a coup d’etat from the oligarchy. But the American Left can’t hear the boots marching towards them.

At this point in our nation’s politics, I refuse to believe they are fascists at heart. I think they are sweetly misguided, to say the least.

Now I discuss how anti-feminism is the preferred tool of fascists to stop women running for power on the progressive side. I will start, of all places, with the emails.

On Hillary Clinton and Being Sick of Hearing About Emails

Hillary Clinton stated recently that it was the release of the emails few days before the elections what defeated her. I respectfully disagree with her.

The emails was a year-long 24/7 campaign in the media, both MSM and Leftist’s’, against her (Bernies criticized him for not hammering on her with the emails). By the time the white dudes at the FBI dumped to the public the last batch of emails, the word ’emails’ in the campaign had become code for ‘Hillary Clinton corruption’.

The public didn’t even bother to read them. The MSM reported that people were not reading them, and incorrectly assumed that it was because they were already set to vote for her. What had apparently happened was that, by the end, voters who did not like her but were planing on voting for her holding their noses, couldn’t take any more ‘evidence’ of Hillary’s ‘corruption’; they just gave up on her.

The media underestimated the efficiency of their psychological job of opinion-shaping through public character assassination. Their work at associating the word ’email’ with ‘corrupt Hillary’ was an absolute success, even though there was nothing incriminating there.

So, it was not the last batch of emails that did her in. First, it was the unrelenting MSM portrayal of HC as corrupt, even more so than Trump and more ‘disliked’ than him (even though she won the popular votes). It started when she was First Lady (no emails and no Iraq then) and the Israelis were angry at her for supporting the Palestinians, and continued in the 2008 primaries where Karl Rove turned it into a multi-million dollars weapon of misinformation and character assassination against her.

hil

This one from her 2008 run, clearly an early Rove product. Note the amount of hits.

hil2

Up to then, the attacks on her were on her feminism, insinuating that she is a ‘corrupting lesbian’; no ‘politically corrupt Hillary’ at that time, only ‘evil depraved man-eating feminist Hillary’. She won the popular vote, but lost the primaries. Sounds familiar?

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=282452&h=530&w=758

This was the ‘kiss of death’ for HC. It is the beginning of the Hillary bashing tradition. This photo was used to portray her as a lesbian in the MSM. Then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) and kisses Suha Arafat, wife of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, November 11, 1999. (photo credit:REUTERS)

And second, the Leftists, both during the 2008 primaries and now. Sanders, his followers, and the rest of the Left have been even more vicious on their attacks on her than the MSM. They attacked her as an ‘evil woman‘, ‘babies killer’…The MSM couldn’t get that nasty this time. They had published, just as these primaries started, a series of reports about violence against women in India, other parts of the world and in the USA; so they couldn’t attack Hillary with the same crude misogyny they used in 2008, it would have been too easily recognized as such.

So they let the Left do the dirty job for them while they focused on ‘dishonest Hillary’ and ’emails Hillary’. That’s why Sanders rolled through the primaries unvetted by the media, to contrast the evil feminist with him, the saintly and totally trustworthy and ‘innocent’ non-politician outsider man who became the victim of that corrupt woman. Trump thanked Sanders for providing the ammo to ‘kill’ Clinton, all the name-calling and accusations of corruption and rigging the system. Yes, they helped him win.

So, it was not the email that did her in. It was the years-old brutal misogynistic campaign portraying her as, literally, and evil and corrupt witch/bitch, which has never failed to convince the unwary and those who can’t stomach a woman in the presidency. ‘Those’ include the men in the oligarchy, owners of the MSM, etc.

The “Two Minutes of Hate”: Shout it! Goldstein and Feminists! (One minute each, please.)

Hillary Clinton has always identified her self as ‘feminist’, and did so openly recently on a Rachel Maddow interview. Hillary’s ‘brand’ of feminism has always been heavily under attack by right-wingers, but more openly by the Leftists, both men and women. Most of the criticism centers around the fascist old mantra that: 1) economic class struggle (male, i.e.) and 2) the fight against imperialism are more important than women’s and all other Identity Politics issues, and 3) that feminism takes away energy from those fights:

“We suggest that feminist enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is reflective of a profound crisis of US liberal feminism, which has long embraced or accepted capitalism, racism, empire, and even heterosexism and transphobia.” Leftist Jacobin magazine

That statement is an example of a ‘totalitarian‘ ideology: everything is wrong with all the members of that class, i.e., Hillary’s female followers and feminism in its entirety. Even if you disagree with some feminists, branding all of them as imperialists and racists is incorrect and aligns you with right-wing ideologies: Feminist/feminism is an evil for both the fascists and the Left.

Related image

‘Two minutes of hate’. Scene from ‘1984’ move based on George Orwell’s novel.

Note: While more than half of all men voted for Trump, many millions voted for Hillary. When I refer here to fascist and misogynist men of all color and nationality, I am not referring to the millions of men who had the intelligence and heart of letting a woman and women’s issues be part of the progressive agenda.

The Fascist Inside Me

In the new millennium, when Isis stomps around the Middle East reducing women and girls to the status of sex-slaves, when world-wide institutionalized male violence against women is at its peak, including here at home, the American Left, through their male misleadership, lament that Hillary Clinton raised women’s issues to the same levels of the male working class. Yes, male, because, by ridiculing the inclusion of women’s issues (like BAR in the quote did), they conveniently forget that women are in the labor force and have particular needs there: Men generally don’t suffer sexual harassment and sexism in the job.

This perpetual hatred to things that are of women’s interests’, this anti-feminism, is one of the three most recognized characteristics of the ideology of fascism, together with ultra-nationalism (hatred of all ethnic groups they identify as, in the USA, non-American) and racism (hatred of all non-whites).

As I have discussed recently on this blog, the now trending Identity Politics is part and parcel of fascism. People were labelled with symbols that became associated with hatred, to identify them as the ‘other’ in public: The Jewish with the star and the homosexuals with the pink triangle. Identity was destiny in 1930s Germany.

But the Left insists that the Hillary Clinton’s feminist agenda, her inclusive program, is distracting to the sacrosanct white-working class’ interests. Now they want the Democratic party to put the interests of these white working class men above that of the rest of us.

That explains in part how we got to this crossroad in the USA politics.

 

sanders

Sanders dismissing Trump’s comments about imprisoning women who have abortions as “stupid remarks” that do not deserve media attention.

Note: Because the American Left has sided with Trump and the fascists in this presidential elections, and this is an inartful blog, I referred to them as the Zombie Left. You know what a zombie is, don’t you? A zombie is an unnatural creature with no brain and no heart created by their masters for the purpose of dragging the living beings to their hellish underworld.

zombie-left

American Zombie Leftists

Recommended books:

Image result for Germany-Tried-Democracy-William.

by S. William Halperin

 

If you want to understand today’s Left and its relation to Fascism, this it the book you need. I highly recommend it.

Another excellent book, this one by Kevin Passmore.

Image result for a very short history of fascism

X-Rays Show: It’s a Malignant Media

As everybody else, I’m raking my mind trying to put the pieces together that would give me a more complete picture of WTF Happened Here?

I know all the usual suspects:

  • ‘I see white people’.
  • Those white bitches
  • Is the economy, stupid.
  • Hillary Clinton (HC) “was a shitty candidate”, explained yesterday Bernie Sanders with all the power of his compassionate heart for women.
  • The Immigrants! Quick! Round them up.

But looking at the recent stats coming out from every fancy research expert’s butt, there are TWO slithering effective crooks who stole your mental sanity and escaped untouched, unharmed, unnoticed, and ever so supremely victorious: THE MEDIA and its wife MISOGYNY.

Hillary Clinton “underperformed” on every category except on one: Black women. A whopping 95% of them voted for HC. Where did Black men go, or everybody else for that matter?

We can confidently assert that Black women is the ONLY segment in our nation that was NOT influenced by the media, be it mainstream (MSM) or Leftist. These women were not affected, they didn’t fall to pieces, like the rest of the nation apparently did, by the last-minute dump of emails that caused so much depression that even HC’ supporters fled in shame from her side.

Of Suicidal Lemmings And That One-Statistical Point

If, as the stats show, HC and the Dem Party lost at least one point in every category (except Black women), then where did that one point go and why?

Let’s be clear, people are not lemmings that commit suicide by leaping en mass to the ocean.

Image result for the rodents that jump the cliff

 

Actually, lemmings don’t do that either. The truth about jumping lemmings is very similar to that of humans.

Lemmings were being chased down and thrown to the cliff by a Walt Disney crew filming “True Life Adventure” series in 1958. They edited the film, you could not see them behind the lemmings doing their inhumane deeds for ‘educational purposes’.

And so with that one-statistical point. They were being chased down the cliff to the ocean of fascism in this presidential election by the media who was hiding behind the “professional journalism” camera, edited to hide their dandy art of pushing public opinion to commit suicide en mass.

Who Exactly Did The Media Attack?

There is agreement across our political spectrum in that the MSM did a horrific, but efficient, job of misinformation and manipulation of public opinion. Unfortunately, there is no agreement on who benefits from what was done, nor on how  that misinformation took shape.

Some people believe that Sanders was ignored by the media, while other believe that he was used to contrast his ‘honesty’ against Hillary’s perpetual dishonest personality; that Trump was unfairly attacked all the time, and some believe that Hillary was NOT attacked by the media, while other believe she was.

There are at least three reasons that explain the lack of agreement in that area.

One,  lack of understanding by regular folks about the art of misinformation and opinion-shaping (because it is an art taught in colleges). Second, because of the belief that freedom of press must be total in a democracy. In my opinion, total freedom of press is like saying that, if I can circumvent your home security system, you don’t need to fix it, just deal with me. And third, because the public ideological position is that the media, even though it belongs to a financial elite, doesn’t bring the owners’ class interests into their job. In other words, capitalist media owners are honest, they just want your ‘clicks’ for money.

This refusal to believe that Murdock or Bezos (WaPo) use the power of the media to advance their class interests is the gem of the elite class. This refusal to believe that there is a class interest behind their journalistic reports must be corroborated and protected at all cost.

Killary Clinton: Because She Is A Babies Killer

Hillary Clinton has been dodged by public lashing in the media since she was First Lady. Character assassination has been the tool used against her all along.

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation.

In May this year, comedian Jon Stewart implied that HC is a sociopath, even suggesting that she is not a human being:

Maybe a real person doesn’t exist underneath there.

That is the picture the media, from right to left, has given us this year. I discussed the history of this attack on her on this blog. Please, check it out.

Misogyny: Because We All Enjoy Attacking Women as Bitches

To be continued tomorrow.

https://wordpress.com/stats/day/crazyusaelections.wordpress.com?startDate=2016-11-11

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/berniebots-splitting-and-brainwashed/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-great-american-brainwash-half-a-billion-dollars-to-turn-the-public-against-hillary/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

Hillary Clinton Didn’t Lose, And White Progressive Women Voted For Trump

For all the lies written about Hillary Clinton, the most recent one circulating the blogosphere is that she lost because she was an ‘awful’ candidate.

The fact is that she WON the popular vote (60,007,707 and still counting) to Trump’s 59,736,883. She lost in the undemocratic electoral college vote. It is possible that the electoral vote count had been different given the hypothetical situation that the aggregated 5 million votes cast for Johnson and Jill Stein had gone to Hillary.

In any case, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a small margin as of November 10.

Another polemic fact: Most WHITE women voted for Trump (53%), while a whooping 95% of Black women voted Hillary. I know many ‘progressive’ white women who said that they were not voting for Hillary. So, it is not only right-wing white women who voted against her, it was ‘progressive’ and ‘leftist’ white women who joined their extreme right sisters in bringing this debacle to the USA. Some ‘non right wing’ women voted directly for him, and indirectly  by voting with Johnson and Stein, and by abstaining from voting.

Image result for white blonde women

More white women voted for Trump than for Hillary Clinton. They are both from the far Right and the far Left. They have nothing to lose with a President Trump. They can always use their white privileges to circumvent the oppression that colored and minority women will suffer under his administration. Thank you, white ‘sisters’. You are sooo gorges. God bless your racist souls.

Congratulations. I’m sure you are happy with your actions. I’m sure that, being white, you don’t have to worry about how Trump is going to send colored and minority women back to the 1800s.

The Zombie Left Trashes Angela Davis For Supporting Hillary Clinton

In Black Agenda Report (BAR), Margaret Kimberly trashes Angela Davis; she felt compelled to tear off from Angela’s chest all the medals the 1960s Left had awarded her, and declared her ‘Persona non Grata’ of the new zombie American Left. Angela’s big crime: supporting Hillary Clinton.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fa/8d/73/fa8d73eab76552e8165b21d4ec1b9468.jpg

Free Angela Davis from the zombie American Leftists

Other ‘crimes’ committed by Angela, per the article, include her support for Obama in 2008. Funny thing is, the zombie Left, because they are unnatural brain-dead creatures, don’t remember that THEY were there with Angela rooting for Obama. True, BAR was one of the few who didn’t support Obama. But the rest of the American Left, and just about every Black progressive group and individuals, supported him,  even the Communist Party.

You see, you are allowed to commit those ‘mistakes’ as long as you don’t commit the mortal sin of supporting that woman, Hillary Clinton. You can support EVEN TRUMP, a billionaire elitist who supports the oligarchs and lies through his teeth. But you are not allowed to choose Hillary Clinton. Why? Well, the fact that she is a woman weight heavily in their hatred of her.

The American Left in almost its totality attacked Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries with the same vengeance and hatred and misogyny they are doing today, when at that time there were no email scandals nor any of the crimes they attach to her today. Angela Davis was there with them too, but, for the zombie Left, nothing can redeem you if you don’t join them in their zombie world.

Today, the zombie Left is attacking Angela Davis as a whole person, nothing in her is worth anything anymore to these unnatural people. Denouncing Trump as racist and fascist is anathema to the zombie Left, and so they have declared Davis  guilty of that ‘crime’. The past is forgotten, your good deeds are erased from history if you exercise on your own the power of your brain. Zombies, they envy the living people’s brain.

The American Left has been a non entity since the 1970s. No one listens to them because they became inefficient, lazy and ideologically corrupt. Today’s millennials can’t relate to the American Left because it is a phantom in their lives; the Left have been forgotten because they made themselves IRRELEVANT.

It is common knowledge that when the working class is considered defeated when  the progress it made in the past with blood is taken away from them; that’s their situation today, defeated by the oligarchy and globalists. Rest assured, the Left is part of the reason for the slow defeat of the working class. Just like in Nazi Germany,  when the Left could not stop bickering over who had the best interpretation of Marxism and allowed the Nazis to build a coalition with the military elite and corporations; the working class had nothing to protect them from the excellent Nazi propaganda machinery and their powerful coalition. The leftists were staring at their navel. The rest is history.

Today, the absence of an ideologically honest Left, capable of assessing their strength and weakness to engage in coalitions with the Dem party and other groups, is one of the reasons the working class supports Trump, but not the Left which have been talking about globalism for years.

The American working class has no one to support its interests in the Left. The Left is compose of pseudo-intellectuals who will support Trump if he wins.

I discussed the American Left’ support for Obama in my 2008 blog https://theobamanightmare.wordpress.com/

This blog is about the zombie Left, about how they became zombies the day they ate the Trump ‘anti-globalism’ lie.

UPDATE: The American left is supporting Trump after the elections. See my recent posts about that. Shame on them.

On the Eve of the Elections: Fascism or Democracy?

Will Americans vote for fascism or for Democracy?

This was not a question I had in mind in any previous election since I moved to the ‘metropolis’ from Puerto Rico in 1982. But now, with the high support for Trump, including from  the ‘intellectual’ American Left, who, contrary to the GOP, is explaining to millennials and to the ‘deplorables’ why Trump is NO FASCIST, that there is no need to be afraid of him,  now I fear that these confused voters might elect Donald Trump tomorrow. The ‘progressive millennials’ are so confused that, in their tender eyes that have not yet seen much of life, Gary Johnson and Trump are ‘revolutionary bros’ and Hillary Clinton is the fascist enemy to be defeated.

This is the scary part of this close-encounter with fascism: This presidential election cycle is like a movie we have already seen, the Fascist German period movie, but people seem to have forgotten it. All the elements for a turn to fascism are already in place here, as I will inartfully discuss in this post; including the Left supporting a fascist candidate for president.

For all the rants about Ronald Reagan’s and the GOP’s ‘fascism’ up to the year 2000, it was understood that their brand of fascism was pretty much hidden behind the curtains of government and behind the knowing media. Our political liberties were still there. I participated freely in Leftists activities, I was arrested, and the courts PROTECTED my right to dissent.

Sure, not always works that way; we still have political prisoners here, a surveillance state, and the fights against the oil pipelines and WS are brutal. But this is yet NO OPENLY FASCIST nation. We can still fight and go home and watch a movie. Most of us are not afraid of being surreptitiously scooped off from the streets by the SA.

No matter how bad things are here, the Constitution is still alive. But the nightmare is setting in, maybe not this year, but sooner than we can imagine. The signs are showing.

Cast of characters

We have the masses of people – working and middle and poor classes, the ‘ethnic’ groups, etc., railing about the economy. Yes, our economy is sinking. That proverbial falling feeling you have when you see your paycheck? Is not in your mind, it is happening to you. The middle class is disappearing, falling down with the poor.

As discussed in this blog, even the globalists admit that their philosophy of global economy has worked mostly for the top 1% of the world-wide elite. Even they are looking for ways to slow down (in uber globalist Larry Summers’ words) the destruction that their progress is inflicting in the rest of humanity and the planet.

Two famous ‘logical inferences’ come to mind: One, where there is smoke, there is fire. The other one is Where there is the smoke of economic crisis and profound and sustained inequality, there is the fire of social and political turmoil. Economic turmoil led in Germany to political crisis.

Donald Trump as Hitler

I venture to say that the millennials are too young to recognize the psychological  features of a totalitarian despot. Trump’s followers, some dismissed as ‘deplorables’, are as ignorant of these features themselves. But the zombie Left has no excuse for not recognizing these features.

To learn about these ‘psychological features’, the millennials only have to watch those documentaries about Hitler (reading is not appealing these days, and the zombie Left is more confused about Trump than the millennials) to see him using the same words as Trump. ‘Corporations are taking away our jobs’? Hitler and Trump. “I’m your voice”? “Immigrants are destroying this nation”? Check and check.

The millennials should see Trump’s unabashed expressed hatred of women, minorities and immigrants as the most explicit sign of how this man is a ‘mini-me Hitler’. He is morally unfit to be our president. The fact that they don’t see it is terrifying because of what it means: they are ideologically and historically uninformed and confused. They are the food from which the media, the fascists and the zombie Left feed (you know what a “zombie” is, don’t you?). It leads to the next cast of characters.

The Glorious  Intellectual Left

The German Left was as guilty of the rise of Hitler as was the people’s inability to see the danger lurking behind his promise of ‘order and economical progress’.

Today, the American Left exhibits the same faults and character flaws, and then some, of the 1900-1930 German left.

The most offensive of these faults is their inability to create a coalition against the right wingers because they can’t overcome their petty ‘ideological differences’. They can’t work not even a TEMPORARY coalition with the Dem party and Hillary Clinton because each group feels only they have THE TRUE Marxist interpretation of class struggle, each group thinks they should be the ONE party of the working class; everybody else is wrong and not worthy of their attention.

The German Left was instrumental in defeating  the empire in 1918, but it was unprepared to hold on to that victory. Their continued divisions opened up the political space for a coalition between former right wing enemies, i.e., the military elite, the nascent big corporations and Hitler to unite against the working class. Divide and conquer, it never fails. The battle for the ‘correct’ Interpretation of Karl Marx analysis of capitalism kept the left divided. Same today. The fascists took the candies while the left was bickering among themselves about what Karl Marx meant.

Today, as I have discussed in this blog, the American Left is basically a zombie Left. They have become an unnatural creature  that functions as Trump Apologists. They explain, because they are the ‘intellectual left’ that must ‘teach’ the working class how to do the ‘revolution’, in their online ‘think tanks’ why the working class must IGNORE the attacks on Trump as ‘fascist’ and racist and misogynist, and vote for him. In their miserable existence (literally), they see Hillary Clinton, a CENTRIST at worse, as the enemy.This is their explanation (apology) of why we should not castigate Trump as fascist and racist:

“In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.” Peter LeeTrump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascismat Counter Punch

Don’t you love it when the zombie Left uses the adjective(?) “supreme”, like in the 1900s: “supreme comrade”, “supreme zombie Left”… The problem with Trump is not fascism, according to the supreme Left. Actually, there is NO PROBLEM with him, according to them, because Trump is talking about ‘class identity’. How is Trump talking about that is beyond my comprehension, but the zombie Left hears from their graves Trump calling them: ‘When I say ‘grab them by the pussy’ I mean grab the working class woman by the pussy.’ That’s good enough for them. Then there is…

The Media

The presidential election process in the US consists of three elements: the people, the TWO parties, and the media. Of the three elements, the media is by far the most important during the campaign cycle: Through it you control what is publicly discussed, you shape opinions with real and/or fake facts. It is from these facts that must people make up their minds about candidates, mainly because the people don’t have the time to ‘research’ the candidates.

The media forced us to talk about Trump with its 24/7 coverage of anything that could be linked to Trump. It is the media’s fault that Trump is this close to the White House. They gave him billions worth of free coverage and legitimized him and his campaign.

In the US the media enjoys an unearned and pernicious trust from the public, which is the same as saying that the American people are easily manipulated by them. When the people complains about the media, as Trump has shown himself, is not about it been ‘dishonest’. The complaint is ‘don’t attack my side’, be dishonest with the other side’.

We have this news snippet to prove this point. Last Wednesday Murdock’s Fox News allowed Bret Baier  to falsely report  that Hillary Clinton “will be indicted by the FBI”. The purpose was clearly to try to influence the outcome of the elections. Trump’s campaign manager, Miss Personality, Kellyanne Conway later stated, and the media agreed with her, that it doesn’t matter that the public was misinformed because “The damage is done to Hillary Clinton”.  In her eyes,  the misinformation by the ‘professional media’ is a good thing if it unfairly damages your opponent: “No matter how it’s being termed, the voters are hearing it for what it is — a culture of corruption,” Conway explained.”

This is the essence of Machiavellianism, but it is Hillary Clinton the one dragged through the media with the label of ‘dishonest’.

I discussed in this blog how the media covered the ‘protesters’ on both campaigns.

The End

Well, tomorrow is the day. If Trump wins, blame the media for propping him up, and start packing your suitcases, if you are non-white, or white who despises fascism.

If Hillary wins, start buying those marching shoes, ’cause there will be a lot of protests to do. I expect Hillary’s administration to be exemplary at home, but a bit less so in foreign policies issues. We will have to both stand by her at home to protect the administration from the fascist coalition of GOP, confused millennials and zombie Left, and nudge her to the progressive center in foreign affairs.

That’s what democracy looks like.

Hillary is NOT the enemy, ignorance is. Hillary will be our finest president ever, if the fascist triumvirate of GOP, deplorables and millennials/zombie Left doesn’t unite to  impeach her. It will be painful to watch the zombie Left working to install, again, fascism against the working class.

For the zombie Left, either get out of the way or start building a viable third party. Or get ready to rumble with the anti-fascist realists.

Madam President, congratulations. I’m here to serve you.

From The Nation Mag – “To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy”

I have been very critical of the American Left in this blog, and I have made the people at The Nation magazine the exception to my ire against the Left.

This is the latest article by them titled “To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy”. I hope they don’t mind that I’m copying it here. You can go to their site if you want more articles about the Left and Hillary.

 
To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy
In James Comey’s latest investigation, too many of you see the right’s caricature of “Crooked Hillary.”
By Jeffrey C. Isaac

I am uncomfortable with political labels, especially as applied to me. But to most people in the world, I would be considered someone on the left. I am a contributing editor of Dissent magazine; I recently edited a new edition of The Communist Manifesto to which I contributed a rather sympathetic essay; through the early summer I was a supporter of the Bernie Sanders campaign, and published a number of pieces seeking to explain and to (critically) support this campaign. Only after the Democratic convention did I decide to support Hillary Clinton, which decision I explained in a July 26 piece titled “Why I Support Hillary Clinton for President: A Letter to My Friends on the Left.” Since that time I have been a strong Clinton supporter, for the reasons outlined in that piece: because I believe that her centrist liberalism is strongly preferable to the neofascism of Donald Trump; because her neoliberal feminism and multiculturalism is strongly preferable to the anti-feminism, racism, and xenophobia of the Republican party; and because I believe it is a good thing, symbolically and practically, for the United States, for the first time in over 200 years, to elect an establishment woman who is a feminist to the presidency rather than an establishment man who is a misogynist. Clinton is not running against Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren—who both strongly support her. She is running against Donald Trump.

This piece was first published by Public Seminar.
I never thought that Sanders could be a viable Democratic candidate for president; I doubted he could win the primary, I doubted that he could survive a red-baiting general-election campaign, and I was skeptical of some of the claims of having mobilized a mass movement in support of “political revolution.” But I supported him and, had he won, I would be supporting him now. Alas, he lost. Clinton won. She won because she had more power and money and resources and she used these things to win. That is politics.

I have many friends on the left, and many of them are to my left by any stretch of the imagination. They are smart people and good people, and among them, unsurprisingly, there exists a range of opinion on Clinton and whether to support her. But most of them—most of you—have made clear that they strongly oppose a Trump presidency, and that while they do not like Clinton, they intend to vote for her, even if they have to hold their nose while doing so. This sentiment was perhaps most cleverly and also intelligently summed up in the piece by Adolph Reed published a few months ago bearing the title “Vote for the Lying Liberal Warmonger: It’s Important.” I understand and respect this position. At the same time, this kind of language—“Lying Liberal Warmonger”—has made me uncomfortable, even if it is intended in a tongue-in-cheek manner—and I am not sure that it is. Because it is so excessive. Perhaps some consider this justified. I don’t. And the firestorm that has erupted in the past two days in response to FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress, announcing that the FBI will be evaluating the e-mails of Huma Abedin found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, underscores why: because in this electoral contest, right now, it is very important for intellectuals on the left to help get out the vote to defeat Trump and elect Clinton, precisely so that, as a recent Nation editorial states, the left can continue to best advocate for greater social justice.

That right-wing witch hunters such as Representative Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, would immediately jump all over the Comey letter is no surprise.

But I have been taken aback by the responses of some (not all) of my friends on the left, who have basically said, “I told you so. We always said that Hillary was flawed and corrupt and that she was vulnerable to these accusations and now it is all coming to pass and her corruption is going to result either in a Trump presidency or four years of congressional investigation of her corruption. You should have listened to us when we supported Bernie instead of supporting Clinton. Now you are reaping what you have sown. Your candidate has fucked up everything, like we knew she would.”

She is being attacked by the right wing because the right wing hates her. And they hate her because she is a liberal and a feminist.
I understand this kind of indignation, though I do not share it in this case. But I urge my friends to consider that while moral outrage has its place—and in the end only each individual can decide for themselves what this place is—at this moment, less than two weeks before a very consequential presidential election, such indignation serves no good consequence. Even if you say “of course I’ll vote for Hillary, because I hate Trump, but she is a Lying Liberal Imperialist and I hate her and she deserves everything she is getting,” what you are doing, it seems to me, is giving credence to all of those young people—who read you, respect you, and learn from you, inside the classroom and outside of it—who cannot bring themselves to vote. At this moment, when it is so important to support Clinton and to encourage others to do so with their votes, your words are conveying a different message.

Behind the reaction that concerns me lie two premises. One is that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate against Trump. I do not believe this is true, but it is also a moot point, because Sanders lost, and conceded his loss, and while the Clinton campaign worked very hard to undermine Sanders and to defeat him—this is what presidential campaigns do—defeat him they did. Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic party because she was the insider candidate and she had the resources and the organization and she won the primary by getting both more votes and more delegates. It makes perfect sense to keep one’s eyes on the prize of further reforming the Democratic party and supporting the forces of Sanders and Warren. But right now, the Democrats have a candidate, and it is important to support this candidate.

The second premise is that Clinton is a uniquely flawed and corrupt politician whose record cannot stand serious scrutiny, and who has brought these troubles on herself by being such a wheeling, dealing, corrupt individual who plays fast and loose with the rules.

It is this premise that I wish to question here.

And my basic reason is simple: I honestly don’t understand why so many of my friends on the left, who are so adept at employing the powers of critique to challenge conventional wisdoms and to uncover forms of power, are so willing to accept at face value the version of Hillary Clinton that has so assiduously been developed, purveyed, and prosecuted, for decades, by her right-wing opponents in their pursuit of power.

Related Article
Why Progressives Should Vote for Hillary Clinton
The Nation
I do understand the reasons why serious people of the left would oppose much of what Clinton stands for and would struggle for a more left platform—indeed, the current Democratic platform is such a platform! But I urge my friends to reconsider their animus toward Clinton, especially at this moment.

First, let us consider FBI Director Comey’s letter.

Comey’s letter is very disturbing, and many people, myself included, have responded with annoyance and even outrage to this “October surprise.” The immediate response of some of my friends on the left to this outrage has been a kind of defense of Comey. On this view, Comey was compelled to send the letter, and in doing so he was simply following standard procedures of investigating a corrupt and possibly criminal wrongdoing.

Perhaps. But why lend such credence to the self-justification of the director of the FBI in this case? Why ignore what is known—that Comey has conservative ties; that when he publicly “exonerated” Clinton months ago, he did so in a very awkward and troubling manner that raised questions about his professionalism; that he had clearly placed himself in an odd position with Republicans legislators hoping for a different outcome, and he might clearly have aapsychological reasons to seek to ingratiate himself with these legislators by sending them a letter like the one he just sent? Such things are part of the political situation that surrounds Comey, his letter, and the way that it was predictably seized upon by the Republic right and the Trump campaign. And yet some seemed inclined to simply take his letter at face value.

Only hours later, it is now clear that the FBI has had access to Weiner’s computer for some time, weeks if not months, and yet still has not analyzed the e-mails in question; that the e-mails in question had nothing to do with Clinton’s e-mail account or her e-mail server, and at most regard the judgment of Clinton’s aide; that the Comey letter itself was very awkward and misleading, because in fact the only information it conveyed is that the FBI has some other e-mails that may or may not have anything to do with Clinton (there is always “something else” that “may or may not” be relevant; how often does the FBI Director send letters to Congress about such things?); that Comey’s letter, like his earlier press conference, was contrary to Justice Department policy; and that Comey had actually been instructed by his superiors at the Justice Department not to send the letter that he sent anyway. This is all quite stunning and suspicious.

One response to the entire e-mail “scandal” is the one offered months ago by Sanders during the primary debates: it is a side issue, and it has been extensively investigated and no criminal wrong-doing has been shown, and while Clinton’s judgment in this case might be questioned, what she did was little different than what her Republican predecessors Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell did, and it is time to let it drop as a matter of investigation and inquisition, and to focus on the issues at stake in this election, which is now a contest between Clinton and Trump.

A second response is the one adamantly expressed by the Trump campaign and by every Republican elected official: Hillary is “crooked,” and this must be investigated (and litigated) ad infinutum, and the slightest shred of “information” even remotely connected to Clinton or her associates ought to be treated as an occasion for further outrage and further scrutiny of Clinton and the matter ought never to be left to rest.

Comey apparently decided to lean toward the second response, and through his own very questionable judgment, he has thrown red meat to the Republican sharks eager to prosecute Clinton and to defeat the Democratic ticket in the upcoming election.

This entire matter is a prime example of the many ways that the Republican leadership continues to play “hardball” with the Obama Administration and with the Clinton campaign—about the Supreme Court, about all legislation, about everything. The Republicans are about attack and obstruction.

This seems obvious. Why treat it as if it is about the corruptions of Clinton when it is primarily a Republican effort to frame Clinton as a criminal? Why treat it as a matter of individual personality when it is clearly a matter of politics?

In this light, let’s give a second thought to Clinton herself, this supposedly corrupt woman whose corruption, it would seem, exceeds all bounds of normal politics and warrants special investigations. I have to confess, it is the animus expressed by some of my friends, including women friends, about this, that most perplexes me. For in almost every way that matters, Hillary Clinton is nothing more and nothing less than a successful professional woman like most successful professional women we all know and that we often like, and that indeed many of us are.

  • She preaches and practices a kind of “lean-in” feminism that valorizes meritocracy and the professional success of elite women like herself and her daughter.

Is this really different from the way most professional women, including left academic women, proceed? The university is as much a corporate institution as is a corporate business or a government bureaucracy. Do we fault our colleagues, our friends, for seeking prestigious research grants that give them course release, and for asking their famous friends to write letters of recommendation or to organize book panels promoting their work? Do we fault our colleagues for being preoccupied with publication in the officially sanctioned journals, so that they can build records of accomplishment sufficient to earn tenure and promotion, and the privileges these involve, privileges that are not available to most women in the work force? Do we cast suspicion on our friends who do everything possible to promote the educational performance of their children so that they can be admitted into elite universities? In her pursuit of movement up the career ladder, and her valorization of this approach to success, is Clinton that different than most of us who, honestly, belong to the “professional managerial class” as much as she does, and who work through its institutions in the same way she does?

  • She has achieved positions of leadership in hierarchical corporate institutions, where she has traded on connections, and has mixed with members of a power elite with access to money and power.

In this, is she any different than other colleagues, women and men, who become Distinguished Professors, and department chairs, and Deans and Provosts and College Presidents? I have many friends—feminists, leftists—who have achieved such positions, and who have embraced them. These positions are obtained by “playing the academic game,” by cooperating with others in positions of institutional authority, by compromising on ideals in order to get something done in a conservative bureaucracy, by agreeing to manage programs and personnel, i.e, colleagues, by agreeing to fundraise from wealthy alumni and corporate donors, and to participate in events that please such alumni and donors so that they will support you and your institution. Is Clinton’s “game” really that different?

  • She uses her professional connections for personal advantage, making connections that can benefit her in the future, accepting side payments in exchange for her services.

Is this that different than colleagues in the academic bureaucracy, who accept the salary increases and bonuses and research and travel accounts and course release that come with this kind of work? I am a Distinguished Professor at Indiana University. I enjoy these things. Many of us do, including many wonderful scholars to my left who really dislike Clinton. But is she really so different than the rest of us? Really?

In some ways, the differences are obvious. Clinton has succeeded largely through public institutions. She has succeeded on a much larger scale. She has benefited financially on a much larger scale. She is a woman of great power and influence and wealth, who has sought out a degree of power and influence and wealth that greatly exceeds the norm for anyone and especially for any woman. And she is on the public stage, so that every aspect of her action, and her self-promotion—and her e-mailing—is potentially subject to public scrutiny. But is this a sign of her personal corruption, or simply a sign that she has learned how to play the establishment political game and to win at the highest levels? What man who has ever served in the US Senate or been Secretary of State or has been elected President of the US has behaved otherwise than she has?

Hillary Clinton may be more insular, self-protective, awkward in public, etc., than most politicians—but how many of them have been Hillary Clinton, the first woman to endure this level of scrutiny in the history of the United States, and someone who also had to endure eight very public years as the First Lady of a philandering husband, and whose husband was impeached for this philandering? Might this not generate a level of insularity and suspicion in any woman?

She might surround herself with a very insular group of trusted confidants, at the expense of transparency—but don’t all politicians do this?

She might have gained great wealth from her connections—but does this distinguish her from any other powerful person?

In short, Clinton is a successful political leader who is also a woman in a man’s world. And, as Plato taught us millennia ago, political leaders tend to be loved by their friends and hated by their enemies.

And Clinton’s principal enemies are clear: partisans of a Republican party that is led by Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and a cadre of right-wing extremists, that selected Donald Trump as its presidential candidate, and that seeks to turn back the clock on decades of progress for women’s right, civil rights, the rights of minorities, and the (already very attenuated) rights of workers.

Clinton is a centrist liberal, not a socialist or a social democrat. She is a liberal feminist, not a socialist feminist. She is a foreign policy hawk, but within a bipartisan mainstream. She is an insider and an experienced operative in an oligopolistic two-party system, and not a radical or participatory democrat. These are the reasons she is the presidential candidate of a major political party in the United States, which is not Sweden! It is true, on every one of these dimensions she comes up short when judged from the left. On every one of these dimensions of politics and policy, she deserves criticism. This was true before, it is true now, and it will be true if she wins the White House.

But this does not make her an evil or an irredeemably corruption person, and it does not make her a political enemy.

Her opponents on the right have demonized Clinton for decades. They have succeeded in raising her to a level of distrust and opprobrium in the eyes of the mass public that exceeds any reasonable sense of proportion. Mike Pence is now saying that she has a “criminal scheme” to take over the US government. Donald Trump calls her a “criminal” and he promises to jail her. The Republican Congressional leadership is pledged to either defeat her or to dedicate four years to a legislative politics of inquisition modeled on the Benghazi hearings.

She is being attacked by the right wing because the right wing hates her. And the right wing hates her because she is a liberal and a feminist and a woman and because she supports the things that most anger the right wing: gender equality, reproductive freedom, equality for gays and lesbians, gun control, racial equality, and civil rights.

These things that she supports are the things that we support. The things she supports have their limits. She has her limits. But she is not evil, and she is not an enemy.

In the next 10 days leading up to Election Day, Clinton will be subjected to a list-ditch barrage of attacks from the right. She does not “deserve” these attacks. And while the attackers target her, what they attack is much of what is valuable to you and to me. To us.

Let us not exult in her travails. They are undeserved. And such exultation does no good in any case.

Let us defeat a Republican neofascist by electing a Democratic neoliberal feminist.

And then let us treat that Democratic neoliberal feminist, once in office, the same way that any president ought to be treated: with suspicion and critical scrutiny and a determination to press forward an agenda of greater social justice and political responsibility.

 

After Electing Hillary, The US Moves To The Far Right

The mainstream media has informed us as of the last two weeks before the elections that BOTH the GOP and Sanders and his followers are firing salvos against Hillary, warning her that they will confront her in her administration. They both promised, in no so subtle words,  to be obstacles to her come day one of her presidency.

How is this a sign of the US moving to the far right after she is elected president? Is written in the walls, folks. Let’s see.

The Unholy Alliance: The GOP and Sanders’ ‘Political Revolutionaries’

Setting the table

It was Sanders and his followers who initiated the character assassination job on Hillary during the primaries calling her ‘crooked’, ‘sold to WS’, ‘KIllary’, ‘bitch’ ‘you are a liar’…They, including Sanders, have accused her since the primaries  of “rigging” the elections, of “attacking Sanders’ [he wasn’t attacking her too?]. There are no political crimes of which these people have not already accused her of, judged and found her guilty of.

Their intense hatred of Hillary has been out there, unapologetic and unrestrained.

Ever since Sanders lost the primaries, many of his supporters have promised to not let her win the presidency, and if she wins, to not let her do her job. Here are some articles, in addition to all the sources I have used in this blog. You can search on your own, of course.

Stopping Hillary from the left

Liberals are preparing blacklists of appointees they want Clinton to avoid

WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left

Of course Bernie Sanders should pressure Clinton from the left. Here’s why

Then this little conversation:

Sanders said those who still don’t believe Clinton will follow through with the progressive party platform are “going to have to work with [him] to make sure that it happens.”

“This is not trust,” Sanders argued. “We’re not here to trust [her, i.e.]. It is the very opposite of what I am saying: To say, oh sit back, elect Clinton and then trust.”

“No,” he continued. “Mobilize. Educate. Fight.”

They move to the right

Sanders followers, moved by their hatred of Hillary, as i have discussed in this blog, have been constantly and persistently moving  towards Trump, and even towards Johnson, two racists, misogynist and fascist representatives of the American right.

This attraction towards these two is a veritable and painful sign of how the  Sanders’ millennials supporters are ideologically confused, and how dishonest the old Left have become.

It is a fact that a big swath of Sanders supporters are considering voting for Trump or Johnson, even more than for Green’s Jill. It should be of concern for anyone who knows the history of how Hitler took power in Germany that these people are behaving like this. It is the same story, folks. The working class vacillated between the Left and the right every time the economy and politics were against them, and the Leftist parties, who were anti-socialism, could not stop the right from appealing to the working class.

The emails, the bond that ties the Left and the Right together

Sanders supporters were very angry at him for not pursuing the email scandals; they are sure that he would have defeated her in the primaries had he push the issue. Now that Assange and the GOP have squeezed that lemon to maximum results, you can count on Sanders and his supporters to join in with the GOP on an ‘investigation’ to possibly impeach her.

The dream of the deplorables and Sanders followers of ‘send her to prison’ may come true, after all. Both the GOP and Sanders ‘revolutionaries’ will try to impeach her over the emails. It’s not far fetch, people. Just look at what they have said and done.

Hatred Always Find a Path to Manifest in Actions

What will happen in the US when the GOP, Sanders ‘revolutionaries’ and the deplorables join forces to impeach a Madam President? That is yet to be seen.

But what have been seen is the effects of political hatred, of racism and misogyny. The intense hatred in the hearts of Sanders followers and the decrepit American Left will find an outlet because the times are ripe for it. Also, I have left out the MSM as part of the forces moving the US to the right, but they are the tool to disseminate all this hatred in our nation.

In times of ideological confusion, the right wing forces tend to catch the most fish.

In my opinion, the future doesn’t look bright nor pretty.

We will have to protect Hillary’s administration by all means available if we are to cut fascism from sneaking in through the door of the Unholy Alliance.

Clinton’s fearlessness is a beacon for her supporters

When we make peace with our destiny, fear recedes. Hillary Clinton understands that. She knows her place in history. Her detractors do not. It is the source of her strength — and of their desperation.

Photo: HFA

With every bizarre twist in the 2016 election, every new anti-Hillary tempest, every dire warning of her campaign’s imminent demise, I remember Hillary Clinton telling a small group of 2008 aides that she viewed herself as the “tip of the spear” for women and girls.

That phrase has stayed with me, four words that sum up a philosophy of life, a willingness to test limits and smash barriers, an embrace of the unknown and the unknowable, an acceptance of the inscrutable unfolding of each moment.

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign embodies that philosophy. In her final quest to end a 227-year shutout of women at the pinnacle of government, she has been the tip of the spear, piercing through fierce resistance to reach a destination that is now only days away. She does so without fear in her eyes, only determination and joy.

The intersection of fear and destiny is familiar to me. Growing up in Beirut, I was surrounded by bloodshed and terror. The capriciousness of death, its looming presence, taught me to accept fate at a young age. That acceptance mitigates fear.

It can’t be easy to have millions of people spitting hate at you, many of them wishing you bodily harm. But Hillary Clinton knows it is part of her life story, her fate. She comprehends it. She accepts it. That acceptance gives her strength.

As another wild election week ends and a new, final week begins, her fearlessness is a beacon for her supporters. They are fearless as she is, empowered by a sense of history and the conviction that she will prevail:

david

WaPo and Media Deserve the Joseph Goebble’s Medal Of Honor

The WaPo has this headline on its online edition

trump-watergate

but when you click on it, this is the real headline:

Clinton: Americans deserve ‘full and complete facts immediately’ regarding new email probe

In that long article, there’s only one line about Watergate, Trump’s quote, so why is it so important to quote him about it? There’s more powerful info in that article than Trump’s reference to Watergate, and regular folks don’t care about Watergate.

So, why is The WaPo helping Donald make the connection between Watergate and the emails for the Hillary-haters?

Because Trump and the MSM know that Watergate and Hillary are one in the minds of the GOP and the center-right & extreme right-wing oligarchs. Only they care about Watergate because they know that the history of the Hillary-hating phenomenon starts with Watergate.

Her participation as a lawyer in the proceedings to impeach President Nixon was her first bad political karmic moment. Then as today, it doesn’t matter to the GOP and the 1%ers whether she was successful or not in impeaching Nixon. Being part of the proceedings was the sin that the GOP will never allow her to cleanse; every attack by the GOP and the MSM on her, and Bill’s ‘impeachment’, is the result of that karmic moment in history.

Watergate is what explains the mystery of Why the media and the GOP, who supposedly despise Trump, has been bashing Hillary with more gusto.

This is a rerun of that 2008 primaries episode when Hillary Clinton ran for president and was forced by the media’s constantly bashing her with misogyny and lies created by Karl Rove to concede to Obama, even though she was ahead of him.

As a First Lady, Hillary Clinton was tormented by the Republicans and the MSM, which dutifully  joined in portraying her as a bitch and a lesbian. Karl Rove was the Joseph Gobblers of the GOP propaganda, expert in manipulating the public for character assassination.

I’m convinced that Rove bestowed on The NYT and the WaPo, among other owners of the MSM, the “Joseph Goebbel’s Medal of Honor” for services rendered. They should get it again this year.

gob

Summing Up the Elections: The Horrors, the Fun, and the Historic

SUMMING UP THE ELECTIONS

This presidential election cycle has been a wonderful mix of horror and entertainment, simultaneously. Call it whatever you want but ‘boring’, which is what typical presidential elections are.

Four issues stand out, in my view, in this election, which I discuss in this post, namely: the “political outsider”, racism, ‘class warfare” (aka ‘voter anger’), and misogyny in the historic time of the first woman running for the presidency of the USA.  I’ll start with the horrors, though.

The Horror

The horrific character of this election is not solely due to that magnificent mediocre-entertainer-turned-GOP-slayer-and-Democratic-party-unifier, do I have to call his name? OK, the Pussy-grabber. You see? Horror and fun simultaneously.

The Late Show Screengrab

More horror has been elicited in the hearts of sane people by the response in some sectors of our body politic to the Donald’s unnatural presidential campaign than by he himself. Consider the following.

When a person lacks the ability to feel shame and remorse (guilt), the sky is the limit to the cruelty one can inflict in other humans and animals with nonsense excuses. Shame and remorse are the legs on which morality stands, remove them and you have personal and social chaos; remove them and you have verbal and physical aggression dominating human interactions.

Donald Trump showed himself to be the walking poster-boy of an amoral human being, bragging about not abiding by ‘political correct” attitudes. His lack of shame and remorse allows him to insult and humiliate ANYONE who displeases him or is in his way to grab something, scam the poor and the rich (in that he is ‘fair’), treat women as veritable sexual objects, propose heartless policies, discriminate and show racism…The man has no limits on hatred nor a minuscule sense of loyalty to anyone but himself.

But what has truly scare the bejesus out of sane people is how many people are out there who find AFFINITY with his behavior or who are gingerly dismissing as ‘clownish’ precisely the statements that show his lack of morals, and propose voting for him. Dismissing Hitler’ shameless racism is what brought him to power, didn’t it?

Publicly out there defending Trump’s racist and misogynist remarks are Hollywood entertainers and people in our nations’ political right and left wings.

Susan Sarandon (and ex hubby Tim Robbins) as Trump Apologist. They went public to say that Trump is “less dangerous than Hillary”.

Mainstream America is not aware of how the Left, in its totality (except the people at The Nation, who support Hillary), joined the right wingers and became Trump Apologists to explain to the working class why, despite his racism and misogyny,  he is a better alternative for them than Hillary Clinton. Their support of the Donald is more pornographic than the right wingers screwing America. The immorality of the Left supporting this racist and misogynist elitist ‘billionaire’ has been the topic of this inartful blog since February.

mac

Trump may be a pompous, clownish ass, but Hillary Clinton is a world-class dissembler whose most prominent personality trait happens to be pure, old-fashioned, unbridled Ambition.” 4 Reasons Not to Fear Donald Trump by David Macaray [a man, of course] June 3, 2016 at Counter Punch

And of course,  had the mainstream media (MSM) (MSM = NYT, WaPo, Cable News stations…) refuse to give free coverage to the Don’s absurd campaign from the beginning, we wouldn’t be now running like headless chicken trying to fend off this  third-rate new millennium Hitler. C’mon, at least Hitler knew what he was doing and was ‘good’ at it.

Then there was the horrifying spectacle of Sanders supporters following Hillary Clinton around and hurling insults at her and threatening to ‘kill’ her, while he was  vilifying her. It was horrifying, not only because it was unfair and disrespectful to her, but because most of us knew that Sanders was feeding Trump the ammo to shoot at Hillary. Trump later adopted the insults and thank him for them.

attacking-children

Hillary Clinton’s rally in California was cut short this week when a group of Bernie Sanders backers broke out into a loud protest, with some of the demonstrators even turning their anger against children who were backing Clinton.http://www.inquisitr.com/3070700/hillary-clintons-rally-shut-down-by-angry-bernie-sanders-supporters-protesters-reportedly-ripped-up-young-girls-pro-clinton-sign/#sarAjmyeljyU22yp.99

Interestingly enough, Sanders NEVER apologized to Hillary publicly for those names (“cooked”, etc.,) nor made any gestures to denounce Trump for appropriating his negative sobriquet.

The Fun

Well, I’ll let you identified what was entertaining to you in this campaign. Both Hillary and Trump gave us reason to laugh at them, didn’t they? This is one of those Trump statements that made me laugh:

[Angry when asked why he interrupted his campaign to go cut ribbons for his new hotel he gave a litany of campaign stops and said:] “For you to ask me that question is actually very insulting, because Hillary Clinton does one stop and then goes home and sleeps, and yet you’ll ask me that question. I think it’s a very rude question, to be honest with you.”

LOL You can also check SNL for more campaign fun.

It All Started with Angry Voters and Political ‘Outsiders’:

Angry Voters and Class Wars

It all started with ‘angry voters’ in the primaries, remember them?  I know, the media doesn’t talk about them anymore. That’s because the angry voters have been properly channeled to the two parties to waste their anger on attacking Hillary and Trump, not on those who they claim have actually made them angry in the first place: the oligarchs and ‘globalists’. But I’m digressing.

Those who the GOP considers the plebe (the middle class, mostly the lower end of it) were justifiably angry at how they have been pushed by the oligarchs, the elites and politicians down with the ‘untouchables’ (the poor), identified by the right wingers as the colored ‘free loaders’ and ‘illegal aliens’ living in poverty. The left-wing (Sanders’ followers and the American Left) took as the object of its rage, not the oligarchs, but Hillary Clinton. See “she’s a liar” shouted at her face:

It should be noted that the oligarchs/globalists were never threatened by the angry voters in the Dem party. As I discussed in this blog, they, represented by Larry Summers, came out against Trump, not against Sanders. Why? Because, while Sanders was busy vilifying Hillary and blaming her for all the problems in the world, Trump was ‘shaming’ the globalists publicly, blaming them for the loss of jobs here. They, the globalists, were the ones who admitted that this election is about class wars, but the people don’t want to hear about that.

So, these angry voters populated both the GOP and the Democratic parties, and threatened a revolution within the parties, not outside. They railed against their respective parties’ “establishment” but marched right into them to turn them into the opposite of what those parties are. Sanders’ supporters wanted to turn the DNC into some form of ‘not picante’ Bolshevist Party and Hillary Clinton into a female Lenin.

The revoltosos at the GOP want…I’m still trying to figure that out. I know they want capitalism and globalism, but not too hot either.

The Outsiders: Trump and Sanders

Donald Trump entered the campaign waving the flag of the billionaire outside of politics (we are still waiting to see his taxes to confirm his status as billionaire), and the MSM did not question his claim of being a political ‘outsider’.

Image result for trump outsider politics

I discussed the issue of billionaires, elite and oligarchs as pseudo outsiders in politics here. Is a myth, folks. Anyway, Trump admitted, during the primaries debates and later, that he paid politicians and later got from them what he needed. His own words. So he admits that he is NOT an outsider in politics, he is a manipulator of politics and politicians for his interest. I know, nothing wrong with that, but the point is made that he and other wealthy businessmen are  NOT outsiders in politics. It does matter, people.

Image result for trump political outsider

He is not “controlled by lobbyists” because he is his own lobbyist. He ‘donates’ to politicians to get his wishes.

Sanders, good ol’ Sanders. Not only was he paraded as an ‘outsider’, his followers made a saint out of him, with trip to the Vatican and all to get sainthood status (another fun moment in the elections).

Image result for saint bernie sanders

The MSM promoted the illusion that, because Sanders was an ‘independent’ and ‘socialist’, he was an outsider in politics, that as such he NEVER, in 30+ years in Congress, participated in the parties ‘establishment’.  Of course, the media has refused, to this day, to vet his votes in Congress. Sanders became a threat to Hillary Clinton only because the MSM gave to him the same thing they gave Trump: free coverage.

On top of that, they preserved the image of Sanders the ‘he never lies, he is so honest’, and Hillary the born-liar. You can’t have a bitch without someone to bitch on, can you? The media gave us Sanders to highlight Hillary’s ‘corruption’. But it was Sanders the one hurling insults, calling Hillary ‘corrupt’ and ‘crooked’, she never insulted him…and the media don’t show us his record nor his emails. Remember: The first instance of campaign hacking was his campaign stealing Clinton’s donor and supporters list.

Image result for sanders stealing data from dnc

The Democratic National Committee suspended Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign’s access to the DNC voter database after the party organization said the campaign was able to take advantage of a software error to access Hillary Clinton’s confidential voter information.

Image result for sanders is the only one telling the truth

The Confrontations: Hillary & Trump Feel the Angry Voters’ ‘Burn’

Then there were the protests at Trump’s and Hillary’s rallies. This is where all hell broke loose: the MSM took an uncharacteristic support of leftist ‘rioters’.

As I commented in the post mentioned above, while up to these primaries the media had ignored the OWS and BLM movements, they turned their cameras in FAVOR of those  same people who were disrupting Trump’s and Hillary’s rallies. The media did not accuse the protesters of marching into Trump’s rallies to provoke violence, it accused Trump of inciting violence.

Funny thing is, the American Left DID organize protests to provoke violence.

…include[ing] mobilizing the greatest number possible of radicalizing people of color, youth, Bernie Sanders supporters and others to confront and shut down his campaign events at every opportunity possible. [Quote link in my post .]

And recently, the media and Assange’s Wikileaks want to blame Hillary for it, when it is clear that everybody had dirty hands. The media, above all, for covering the violence and exculpating the protesters as  not inciting violence when they did.

Misogyny Makes History with Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has the historic distinction of being the first woman running for president of the USA, but, were it  not for Trump, that would have been a negative for her in her campaign. During the primaries she was not allowed to boast about that historical achievement: she was publicly criticized by just about everybody for trying.

[Update: Article re MSM “They’re already trying to erase what they did to Hillary Clinton“]

As the first woman running for office, Hillary Clinton has had the undesired and undeserved distinction  of having been dragged through the mud, humiliated for openly running as a woman, blamed for ALL the evils in the planet (no man, president or not, has achieved this feat), called a bitch in her face, have her life threatened by men (not one woman has gone so far as to wanting to assassinate her), condemned by the MSM, the Left and by Trump and his supporters as the ‘most dishonest person on the planet’…

This is the manifestation of hatred of women, and it is historic. This presidential cycle will go to the history books as one where misogyny became a campaign issue by default.

The MSM refused to highlight the historical feature of her candidacy, and on the day she won her party’s nomination as the first woman nominated for the highest office, the Washington Post published this on its cover:

    The Take: Clinton got what she needed, but her image is underwater

It was a hit piece, promoting the ‘conventional truth’ that Hillary is a born-liar and NO ONE likes her. You know ‘conventional truths’, don’t you? They are accepted without evidence and by the force of repeating them over and over.

It is a fact that having someone of your kind (race, gender, nationality) in high office works as a role model, a boost in the collective ego of that group. No need to elaborate here on the importance of a President Obama in that respect.

But women are not allowed, yet, that benefit. Nonetheless, one thing this presidential campaign has done, by this woman running for office, is cast the light at the intensity and depth of misogyny in our culture.

Even women were afraid to praise Hillary in her effort, afraid to put women’s issues in the forefront. It took the king of the misogynist, pussy-grabber Trump, to break the damn dam of misogyny.

Now, as I write this post, it is clear that women, the majority of voters in the land, are inclined to vote for Hillary PRECISELY because of all the misogyny that Trump illuminated. These women saw how many men, from right to left, up and down the social scale, mansplained Trump to them.

That’s why Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is so important. It open the national conversation on women’s issues. No president has cared for it, because they all were men.

Like the saying goes, ‘it ain’t over until is over’. We still have a couple of weeks before we vote, anything is possible, horrible surprises can happen. There are historical evidence to that, like when no one believed that Hitler could win the German elections.

But all in all, this has been the most horrific and positive election in a long time. The last bastion of oppression, after class, race and nationality, i.e., of women, is open for a cleaning. People are angry about the economy and globalism and the elite is listening, for good and for bad.

The MSM has done a superb job at being dishonest, attacking BOTH Trump and Hillary, doing its job for the globalists who don’t want Trump and are not sure about Hillary.

Turmoil will be in the future, but I’m looking forward to the administration of the first woman President  of the USA.

I have discussed most of these issues in this blog. I know I have an unconventional take on things, I’ve been told so. I invite you to stroll around the posts’ titles and take a look. My ESL shows, but you understand what I’m saying. May not agree, but understand the message.

Thanks for reading.

Did Hillary Clinton Force Trump On The GOP?

The American Left (AL) accuses Hillary Clinton of having CONSPIRED to “lower the level of the political conversation by making the GOP recruit Trump”, knowing in advance (but not the GOP) that he would be making an ass of himself and of our presidential election process.

Of course, they don’t explain how she managed to control the minds of the men in the GOP, nor do they present Wikileaks emails as evidence that she personally ‘made them’ recruit him. Evidence is not needed. The ‘conventional’ knowledge is that Hillary is ‘crooked’, so there’s no need for evidence of how that evil feminist woman controls men’s minds. She just does, doesn’t she?

And how exactly did the AL raised the level of that conversation, despite Hillary’s plan and Trump’s potty mouth? Basically, they clean after him, they clean his racist and fascist remarks and give to  them ‘leftist’ meaning: he is ‘anti-globalist!

The AL has given his words a meaning and intention that they, as ‘socialist and Marxists’, should know is not there. There is no excuse for that because, even if they forgot their Marxism, there was this to remind them that Trump is no ‘leftist’:

Do you remember when Trump said early in the primaries that he could kill a man on 5Th ave in broad day light and no one would accuse him of a crime? You remember that comment,  don’t you? It was not idle talking, he knew what he was saying: That he was aware that normal and reasonable people, let alone socialists and Marxists, would be CORRECT in being appalled by his racist and misogynistic comments and would normally make him pay for it one way or another.

By comparing his campaign ‘conversation’ to  a crime, he was admitting knowledge of the meaning of his words.

The unstated conclusion of his comment was “given that no one seems to care, heck, I’ll go all the way”.

In other words, YOU, the AL, heard that and did exactly what he described, you didn’t care,  and you joined his DEPLORABLES   in ignoring his ‘criminal’ behavior.

Actually, you have done worse: you EXPLAIN to the American working/middle class (thank god they don’t read your magazine), what Trump REALLY means – more correctly – what you wish he means.

The AL’s Crime

Many of you consider yourselves within some shades of Marxism, and most surely socialists. Where is the discussion about class identity, consciousness? Do you remember ‘class identity’?

Why have you been EXPLAINING to the middle class that Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, with a history of helping no one but himself, no history of putting his money where his potty mouth is to help the middle class or the left, who has done nothing for America, why do you explain to them that he represents the interests of middle class, AND that he is a better alternative than Hillary? (I can hear that voice in your mind saying ‘but Hillary…’ Focus on what I’m saying, I will talk about her later.)

He is proud of evading taxes and of being an ‘excellent’ realtor, because evicting poor people is part of being an ‘intelligent’ businessman. “Hey, is necessary to take advantage of the loopholes”.

Is it ignorance, or willful desire to deceive our people; or are you truly that callous as to disregard the American non-elitist classes and women to pursue some ineffective intellectual Bolshevist ideal? Yes, Bolshevist:

“In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.” Peter Lee Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism at Counter Punch

The reason the AL ignores, as the Deplorables, his racist and misogynist remarks is because they don’t care about that, they care only about ‘Bolshevist” ideas, the same ones that have kept them ignored by the American working class.

Yes, you are disregarding the poor, women and the ‘colored’ people for your pseudo Bolshevist agenda. Evidence:

“A President Hillary will kick up anger already on the boil in the Trump camp. The Bernie camp will match that anger if she lays aside his revolutionary call and settles on “children and the family,” issues at most peripheral to the battle against plutocracy Bernie took on.”

That was an expression dismissive of “children and the family” issues. The ONLY thing that matters to the pseudo-intellectual AL are the “issues” that Sanders “took on”. We know for a fact that he didn’t “took on” the issue of women right to abortion, for he DISMISSED Trump’s suggestion of prison for women who have abortions. “No need to react to that”, he said.

The AL’s online ‘think-tanks’, and Counter Punch more consistently and explicitly than others, are nothing but Trump Apologists. This is what an ‘apology’ looks like:

“There’s a difference, though. A relatively isolated figure in New York, imprisoned like some Gothic maiden in the gilded aerie of Trump Tower, Melania likely felt compelled to defend her philandering husband in order to preserve her stake in the untaxed Trump fortune. And who could blame her? We know how ruthlessly Donald “schlonged” Marla Maples in their divorce settlement… By contrast, Hillary leapt eagerly to Bill’s defense, desperate to safeguard her shot at power. “ Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead

The Counter Punch writer explains to us, interpret for us Melania’s thinking, and concludes, without saying it openly, that neither Trump nor Melania have interests in “power”, only ‘evil Hillary’ does. Interestingly enough, most articles portraying Hillary as a “power thirsty bitch” are written by men.

But, the crown jewel of Counter Punch Trump Apologist is in the article where they explain to us that Trump is no fascist, with the unstated (in this one, but stated in many others) message that you should not be afraid of Trump, instead be afraid of “that woman”, the feminist bitch.

“Second thing is, Trump isn’t fascist.  In my opinion, Trump’s an old-fashioned white American nativist,

Peter Lee Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

That’s all there is to him, he is “old fashion” racist, not a billionaire with elitist class consciousness, interests and behaviors. No need to fear him.

Apology in action:

“Tagging him as “fascist” allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years…”

Don’t call him fascist, is truly unfair to that poor misunderstood man. ‘Here, let me explain to you why he is OK.’

“In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.”

There, in a nutshell, why the AL finds Trump worth defending and voting for him: because he attacks colored people BUT has (gulp!) working class identity and goals: attacking the globalists. Trump is following “the SUPREME” leftists’ god: the Bolshevist class/money issue, the other human issues are immaterial. Racism and rape of women, nah, not worth a Bolshevist’s attention.

They LAMENT that Trump is losing on account that “…Trump ain’t no fascist.

He’s a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.”

In my inartful blog I have christen the AL as ‘the zombie AL’, the ‘living-dead AL’. We all know what a zombie is. That piece up there is one evidence of how dead the AL is.

I have stated that the AL state of decay started to show when they drank Obama’s Kool-Aid. In “Why I’m Not Voting” Lara Gardner described (Counter Punch) pretty well how she saw that Obama was, in my words, a fake in terms of his ‘leftist’ promises. I too saw it back there in the primaries and tried to join the conversation to call the attention to what I had found about him.

Then, the AL became zombies when they decided to TRUST the Donald. They are so dead that they can’t feel the shame that any living human being calling him/herself ‘Marxist’ or ‘leftist’ would feel if they saw another one of their group supporting Trump.

The point is that the zombie Left joined Obama, attacked Hillary, got used to hating Hillary and are now continuing the job of killing her with ‘conventional truths’ propaganda. They will NEVER look at themselves and admit their errors. Intellectuals don’t make mistakes, it seems. Is us, the politically ignorant minions who can’t understand them.

If they drank the Kool-Aid, why should we trust them now and vote for Trump, as they are asking us to do?

I will address the Hillary-hating misogyny in my next post.

The “Putrid” American Zombie Left: Wishing For Trump to ‘kill’ Clinton

Content
For the Zombie American Left, Sanders and Trump are Morally Equals
Who is the Zombie AL?

Zombies are blind
Zombies blame the living
Zombies’ Musical Theme: Macho Macho Man, I want to be a Macho Man!
Why Hillary?

It would have been more satisfying had Sanders gone, Trump-style, for Hillary’s jugular,

…but some of his ideas [Trump’s] are more progressive than Hillary’s.

…anti-Trump hysteria is and always has been irrational;

ANDREW LEVINE “A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/30/a-putrid-election-the-horserace-as-farce/

In this blog I have given many examples, from articles in the American Left’s (AL) online ‘think-tanks’,  of their pitiful defense of candidate Trump that shows that the AL is dead.

Today I give you the DEFINITE evidence in the form of Counter Punch’s call for Trump to (not-so-figuratively) ‘kill’ Hillary, for him to  finish his campaign using (more!) “dirty” tactics against her, and for you, the voters, to ignore his racist attacks on anyone who is not a white male.

As you will see, “dirty” means misogynistic attacks, and the call to ignore his racists attacks come (in my opinion) from the fact that most of the AL themselves are whites. They have the luxury of ignoring the offensive racists attacks.  Compassion is not in their hearts.

And only mindless people (zombies) would call denunciations of Trump’s bigotry and his absence of rational policy proposals “anti-Trump hysteria”.

I have argued (inartfully) in this blog that the American Left (AL) is a zombie Left, dead, but still roaming around  among the living millennials, and that it died when they became Trump Apologists in February, more or less.

Those quotes up there are  the latest examples of the AL explaining, defending and justifying what no leftist should do: ask the working class to ignore the RACIST rants of the clearly unstable mind of a representative of the racist “billionaire class”, Donald Trump, i.e.

Much that comes out of Trump’s mouth truly is horrendous, but some of his ideas are more progressive than Hillary’s.

This man has done NOTHING  to deserve the support of the left or of the working class, or of women….

From where do the zombie AL gets the idea that this man incarnate  political and moral values of interest to the American working/middle class? Oh, I know the answer to that question: From the same place they got the idea of supporting Sanders, i.e., from their puny political minds. They didn’t vet Sanders, and you can bet your home they didn’t ‘vet’ Trump.

Hell, is there any need to ‘vet’ Trump to know who he represents? He represents himself! But don’t tell that to the zombie leftist ‘intellectuals’; they need time to figure it out by themselves, as they needed time to figure out that Sanders was not there for them.

You see, for the zombie AL, Sanders and Trump are politically and morally similar. Either of them is a good choice for the zombie AL; just don’t choose ‘that woman’, she is total ‘she-devil’. Yes, they have called her ‘she-devil’.

Who is the Zombie AL? Are they the ‘conscience’ of the working  class?

The American Leftists, for me, are most of the members of the old leftist organizations, Marxists, socialists and communist, and their online ‘think-tanks’. They are the ‘leftist intellectuals’ who think they can teach the working class how to do the revolution, seeing themselves as the “conscience” of the working class.

Take Mr. Levine, who wrote that article. He is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies,”, and yet he is telling the voters that Trump has ‘more progressive ideas than Hillary’. How many more?, please tell us. He shows his lack of political acumen, his confusion about the old (but still relevant) leftist concept of class identity when he said this about Sanders in the article:

Perhaps he was with them all along; perhaps he turned cowardly in the end.

The zombie left can’t distinguish one ‘leftist’ elitist from a billionaire elitist. For them, Trump is as good as Sanders. And no one in the zombie left seems to mind the equality.

FYI:What they express in that article are the same feelings across the American Left. The only exception I have found is with the people of The Nation, who are supporting Clinton (but not excusing her ‘imperfections’) and denouncing Trump for what he is.

The uncool Zombie AL

The American Left (AL) has been so ineffective at mobilizing the working and middle classes in the last, let’s say, 25 years, and intellectually bankrupt, that they chose to join the presidential race in the primaries to  lay all of their few political chips on one unvetted man: Bernie Sanders.

They run to the ‘cool group’, wherever there is a group of people doing something cool, they run to join them; they don’t want to be left out (no pun intended, but, yeah.)

They knew, and know, that they, by themselves, couldn’t pull a demonstration of the people’s political power like Sanders’ followers did, so they jumped to his coattails to ride the ‘bern movement’, as if they had anything to contribute to it; worse, as if the millennials were interested on their ‘contribution’.

As I predicted, they lost their bet and blamed Sanders (and Hillary’s “trickery”) for losing to Clinton. They will NEVER dare criticize themselves for, once again, falling for  false leftists prophets; they did it first with Obama.

And now, they are doubling down on another loser bet, backing Trump and hoping that he ‘kills’ the object that reflects their futility: a woman called Hillary Clinton.

It would have been more satisfying had Sanders gone, Trump-style, for Hillary’s jugular,…

Zombies are blind

What I kept saying all along during the primaries was not difficult to see for any leftists worth calling himself/herself leftists.

I said that Sanders participation in the primaries was the typical strategy of the oligarchs of neutralizing what the media (correctly) called ‘voters anger’; that Sanders was the bait to bring those young angry people to the party so they would stop expressing their anger in ‘occupy movements’ and denouncing Wall Street and marching in front of their CEOs homes. I also argued, with evidence, that Sanders was and is a willing tool of the oligarchs.

The AL should ask themselves why did they refuse, and continue to refuse to see it, because now they claim they see it, but they still don’t.

This is the old AL, people; they should have the benefit of ‘living experience’ on their side to help them ‘see’ what was going on in the primaries. Zombie Left.

Zombies don’t know what they are doing

And through the primaries I denounced the AL for blindly and fanatically joining Sanders. The AL can’t claim they were deceived by Sanders. They deceived themselves out of intellectual bankruptcy and frustration for their inability to organize the American working, middle and poor classes and other groups in a time of global people’s anger about their oppression by the globalists. It should be easy to catch some of those ‘angry fish’, but not for the AL.

And now, here they are, the AL, ‘suspecting’ about Sanders the same things I had already denounced. They are so intellectually bankrupt and incapable of self-analysis, that they can’t even make a DEFINITE statement about the meaning of Sanders participation in the primaries and in the current race; they have DOUBTS, i.e., they are CONFUSED about Sanders’ ‘revolutionary purity’.

But when the spirit of rebellion threatened to slip out of their control, the grandees, with Sanders’ cooperation, pulled the plug. Perhaps he was with them all along; perhaps he turned cowardly in the end. Either way, he who made millions of people “feel the Bern” forfeited an opportunity to make history.

Zombies blame the living

And in there lies Sanders’ crime: he didn’t deliver the revolution, he didn’t make “history”. He was the ‘traitor’, not them; they were his followers, he was the undisputed pure messianic leader. Just as they thought Obama was a messianic leader, Sanders was bound to do to them the same thing Obama did:  He let them down. So, now, they all go home disappointed at him, and praying that Trump ‘kills’ Hillary with…misogyny, lies and character assassination.

Why, then, waste a moment’s thought on that horse race? The only reason I can think of is the hope that, playing to his strength, Trump, an inveterate entertainer, will make the spectacle interesting by going dirty.

He could have done that in the first debate, had he followed through with his threat to seat Gennifer Flowers in the front row. Monica Lewinsky would be better, but Gennifer will do. [Misogyny]

The duopoly’s stranglehold over peoples’ minds is still too strong; and Trump still scares too many liberals. [Trump Apology and defense, because, really, there’s NOTHING to fear about a  Trump presidency.]

Because she is a Cold Warrior at heart, who seems undaunted by the prospect of hostilities with Russia, Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous woman. [Woman-hating and fearing.]

Much that comes out of Trump’s mouth truly is horrendous, but some of his ideas are more progressive than Hillary’s. [Ignore his racist remarks and woman-shaming; he has bigly ideas for the nation.]

His more progressive ideas have mainly to do with matters of war and peace, trade policy, jobs creation, and infrastructure development. [They believe him when he says “trust me, I will bring peace as you have never seen before.You can trust Trump’s promises  better than Hillary’s.]

These are matters that voters care about; it would hardly do therefore to dwell on them insofar as Trump, not Clinton, occupies the high ground. [Voters don’t care about racism, therefore, don’t mind his racists rhetoric.]

All of those nonsensical quotes represent the mental attitude of the zombie AL: desperate and angry, powerless and without intelligent ideas to communicate to the voters. (They are not interested in communicating with women). They want no other than crazy Trump to “go dirty” on her. That’s all the zombie AL has today.

Zombies’ Musical Theme: Macho Macho Man, I want to be a Macho Man!

Just as the AL went all goo goo gaga over Sanders without vetting him, now they are dancing to disco Macho Macho Man Trump. They love that manly stamina he has, they love his theatrical buffoonery. They accept him as he is, they want you to vote for him, and not for ‘that woman’. They think he is not dangerous, but she is.

How the American Left ended up in this political miasma supporting a conceited, racist, misogynistic, homelessness-producing megalomaniac and mentally unstable elitist is beyond me. All I know is that they have done a great disservice to the people of this nation, to the possibility of them trusting any one propounding serious ‘leftist’ ideology.

Why Hillary?

As I have said all along, there is no working class party. Until one is organized, we are stuck with the duopoly. I have always voted democratic unenthusiastically This time…I’m with her. Because I did my research, because I researched Sanders and the other ‘leftists’ groups, and none of them is worth risking a Trump presidency.

Hillary, with all her imperfections, is the best option. I’m tired of voting for imperfect men. The zombie AL wants me to vote for a mentally unstable racist billionaire who has done nothing for us, over a rational human being, just because that being is a woman.For the zombie left, any man is better than Hillary; that’s why they voted for Obama. It was not because he was vetted and had better ideas. It was because the zombies don’t like women.

It’s time to give a chance to an imperfect woman. Sanders was almost a saint, but I don’t like saints too much.

I will be updating this post. There’s more I want to say. Please, leave a respectful comment; it can be angry, but not offensive, please.

The American Trump-Apologist Left: Traitors of the American People (II)

‘Pleas’, take note of the two big badges to the right of this post, especially the second one.

Introduction

In my previous post I started discussing the death of the American Left as shown by them becoming Trump Apologists. The process of dying of the American Left (AL), as with all processes, has been going on for quite some time as evidenced by these problems: working class losing workers’ rights, increase in levels of poverty, women losing their reproductive rights…It’s not a newly diagnosed illness what is killing it.

Yes, they don’t control the economy, but they are ‘supposed’ to help the working class organize to protect their rights. When workers lose their rights, it means they are politically weaker, and the Left is toothless.

The Left is simply unaware that the illness eating them is there, and can’t recognize the most recent symptom of their terminal disease: their sympathies towards Donald Trump.

One reason the Left is oblivious to its slow death is its persistent inability to practice self-examination, self-criticism. The AL has traditionally looked outside itself to explain its own failures: it’s always the oligarchy class, the media, the FBI, the CIA, its evil-Hillary stealing Sanders’ thunder with trickery and dishonesty…it’s never they themselves.

As evidence, take a quick look at the analysis of some of the Left’s online think-tanks articles about why Bernie Sanders’ movement failed (as I predicted on this blog, they are already blaming him and not themselves). CounterPunch magazine is a  notorious example of ‘I didn’t do that‘ analysis , but there are others. Here are some articles as example of this attitude:

The Split
Bernie Sanders: the Candidate Who Came in From the Cold
The Revolution Betrayed: Why Sandernistas Have a Right to be Angry,
Bernie’s Failed Revolution: How Sanders fell short of changing the Democratic Party.

I will submit and develop for your consideration some of the factors in the present political culture that show why the AL has stopped being an alternative to the American non-oligarchical classes and groups: Their failures, how intellectually spent they are, and how they have morphed into traitors of the American people. On the next post I would like to discuss how the AL, in yet another sign of treason,  has purposely ignored the political problem globalists and globalism. At the end of this post I introduce that discussion.

Epic Fail, Intellectually Spent, and Traitors of the 99%

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
― Vladimir Lenin

I guess no one gave Lenin one generation of youth. The point being, as the millennials have proven, you have to earn them. And the American Left is not even near getting their attention.

The  professional AL and their think-tanks (the leaders of aging socialists/communist organizations, the political analysts and political magazines and books writers) are part of the American upper middle class, its leftist intellectual elite, materially better off than most workers here and globally. They sit comfortably in front of their PC to draw for us non-intellectuals a floor-map of what we must do to achieve the revolution.

For example, on how to engage and bring to the Left the ‘angry working class element’ supporting Trump:

There are those among Trump supporters who socialists can and should relate to. We do so by ruthlessly exposing Trump’s bigotry and the hollowness of the solutions he offers…include[ing] mobilizing the greatest number possible of radicalizing people of color, youth, Bernie Sanders supporters and others to confront and shut down his campaign events at every opportunity possible.[highlights by me.]

WOW! I guess that by now, after the many ‘occupy Trump’ events, that segment of Trump supporters are totally on the Left’ side, ‘feeling the Bern’, sharing a sense of mutual relatedness with the “radicalizing” socialists who confront them “at every opportunity possible“. By “radicalizing people” the author means thugs without a party.

Interestingly enough, the AL has not being “ruthlessly” denouncing Trump; Hillary Clinton, the MSM and the GOP are the ones denouncing him. Meanwhile, the AL, Sanders and his supporters have been busy spewing their hatred of… Hillary, and “ruthlessly” denouncing… the DNC!

They can’t be “ruthlessly” denouncing Trump because they see him as an alternative to Clinton. This is the mark of the American Left’s intellectual dishonesty: they don’t hate Trump but hate Hillary; they know he is a racist and misogynist, but, for them, race and women take a back seat behind the financial needs of the generic workers, but especially white male workers. They think he is an alternative for the working class and dedicate a lot of digital ink to explain to the voters why he is better than Hillary, as discussed in the first part of this ‘series’. They contribute, with their dishonesty, to keep the American voters blind to Trump’s elitist and, yes, fascist platform.

Allow me to call them, the American Left, traitors of the working class, women, minorities, etc, etc, etc.

As intellectuals, most of the American Leftists are imbued with the typical attitude of elitists: conceit. Nothing repels the sweaty hard working class more than know-it-all socialist intellectuals. But the intellectual AL doesn’t talk to the workers, it talks among themselves. The proof is in the pudding:

After 30+ years of being the ‘conscience’ of the working class, of ‘educating’ them with leftists’ publications, do you see the masses following the Socialist Party or the Green Party today? How effective has the AL been at calling the attention of the downtrodden and the millennials and then convincing them to follow the left’s theory of how to do the revolution?

It could even be correctly argued that today’s millennials, despite the abundance of leftist’ educational material,  have the lowest understanding of basic Leftists’ political concepts like ‘socialism’ and ‘revolution’ – and certainly no familiarity with the concept of ‘class identity’ – as compared with, let’s say, the 60s Left – despite their frequent use of these concepts. That explains, in part, why most millennials feel attracted to Trump’s pseudo-anti-establishment rants. Epic fail.

there is no revolution without the masses

Bernie Sanders has the support of about 10 million active members of the non-oligarchy classes, mostly millennials, and the AL has…what was that, how many? Trump too has millions of supporters following his pseudo-anti-establishment message. An aging ‘independent’ and an elitist billionaire carrying the masses with messages similar to those which the AL has been arguing for over 30 years. That oughta hurt.

So what does the AL do? The same thing they did in the 2008 primaries: they surrendered their intellectual abilities for the joy of been with the masses that have eluded them for so long and were following Obama’s Hope and Change utopia. Basically, to avoid being left behind in touch with their irrelevancy, they became  intellectually dishonest and self-deluded; they drank the Obama Kool-Aide:

Frank Chapman, CPUSA, hailing BO’s victory in the Iowa caucuses:

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole”, not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

Because they are incapable of self-examination, they seldom talk about how wrong they were in supporting Obama. As if their 2008 mistake never happened, today they delude themselves into believing that they are still a political force capable of ‘educating’ the millennials who, before Sanders came into the picture, had an anti-establishment unaffiliated movement of their own. The aging AL have had various joyous conferences to discuss their participation in “Sanders’ movement”, for example, one to discuss:

Should socialists work inside the Democratic Party, with the hope of transforming it into a party that genuinely represents workers’ interests?

That’s the same question they asked themselves in 2008 and many joined the party. They have learned nothing since then. The AL believes that it was Sanders who created ‘his’ movement, and not the other way around. It was the angry millennials who uplifted him and turned his initially lame primary campaign (one for the ‘issues’, taking for granted that Clinton would be the nominee) into a challenging movement… wasted by Sanders’ focus on reforming the DNC.

Sanders achievement was to walk the angry millennials into the Democratic party to ‘burn’ their angry energy and be pacified there. There was no down ballot votes supporting other progressives during this elections cycle.  it was all about Sanders, as it was all about Obama in 2008.

In both cases, then as today, a nascent fresh anti-oligarchy movement has been neutered, thanks to the American Left who helped corral the angry youth into the Democratic party.

From 2008 to today, they have had enough time to build a third-party to challenge the oligarchs’ duopoly, or any other form of ORGANIZED protests. Have them?

As I asked in a previous post:

What is the trick? What is it that Obama and Sanders, and even Trump have that you, socialists and communists, don’t have? Have you asked yourselves that question? But seriously asked yourselves that question?

This I say to the American Left: Don’t bother registering as a Democrat just because you are daydreaming that you can be a ‘subversive’ force in the Democratic party. You have demonstrated all these years that you, socialists and communists, are as painfully unappealing to the working class as a mole in the middle of your interlocutor’s nose, and that you are intellectually spent and traitors of the American people you claim to support, therefore, the American Left as Trump Apologists.

ABOUT GLOBALISM

I am baffled, but REALLY baffled…actually I am horrified at how the AL neglects to read directly from the horse’s mouth what the oligarchs are saying about this presidential elections cycle. Even a cursory look at their think-tanks and most vocal oligarchs will show you what they are up to globally and in the USA. One little example would be enough for understanding what is at stake in this presidential election cycle, one  I have frequently discussed on this blog trying  to call the attention of those professional American leftists: Larry Summers statement about the “danger” that a Trump presidency poses to, let alone the USA, but to GLOBALISM.

Oh, then, it is true that Trump is anti-globalist? asks you. Of course not! But the AL think he is. The problem he presents to the oligarchs is his insistence on talking about the problems created by the globalists. 

You see, the globalists acknowledge that the power is not in Trump hands, but in the angry voters. “Globalism created the angry voters” they say. And they have a plan to make you less angry.

To be continued.

Politico: Study: Trump boosted, Clinton hurt by primary media coverage

This is an article from Politico. It confirms, as other studies have done, that the media is against Clinton and pro-Trump. The article doesn’t explain WHY the media gives negative coverage to her and positive to him. I can guess the reason: they hate a woman in power, especially if that woman is a self-proclaimed a feminist, the word hated by men in power. It’s not about her politics or ‘dishonesty’. If you are dishonest, you can’t be credible in your accusation of another person as ‘dishonest’: that’s what the media have been doing all along.

Whether we have a fascist as the next president will depend on the mainstream media continued support of Trump.

 

Though he regularly bashes the media as dishonest, scum and the “absolute worst,” Donald Trump disproportionately benefited from the Fourth Estate’s coverage over the past year of the presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, drew the most negative coverage of any other candidate as she engaged in a longer than expected battle against Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for more than a year.

That’s according to a report from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy out this week, showing that the reality TV star turned presumptive Republican nominee made up for his slow start in the polls with a boost from positive media coverage. The report analyzed coverage from eight traditional print and broadcast outlets, including CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

“Journalists seemed unmindful that they and not the electorate were Trump’s first audience. Trump exploited their lust for riveting stories,” the report found. “He didn’t have any other option. He had no constituency base and no claim to presidential credentials. If Trump had possessed them, his strategy could have been political suicide, which is what the press predicted as they showcased his tirades. Trump couldn’t compete with the likes of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush on the basis of his political standing or following. The politics of outrage was his edge, and the press became his dependable if unwitting ally.”

Based on the eight outlets studied, the ad-equivalent value of Trump’s media coverage was worth approximately $55 million. The next closest candidate, Jeb Bush, trailed by $19 million, with an ad-equivalent value of coverage totaling around $36 million. As far as the media’s claims that it has been covering Trump in “watchdog” mode, the study appears to discount that notion. The majority of Trump coverage was positive or neutral in all outlets studied, ranging from 63 percent by The New York Times to 74 percent by USA Today.

As far as what brought Trump the most coverage, the study found that 34 percent of coverage related to the candidate’s events and other activities, 27 percent related to “other,” 21 percent had to do with polls, while just 12 percent of the coverage dealt with issues and ideology and 6 percent covered his personal qualities.

Trump received, by far, the most coverage out of any of his Republican primary rivals, earning 34 percent to 18 percent for Jeb Bush, who entered the race in June 2015 as the ostensibly prohibitive favorite for the nomination. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio each received 14 percent, while Ted Cruz, despite running the earliest campaign, earned 13 percent. And while he was technically the last man standing against Trump, John Kasich drew just 7 percent of media attention.

“No candidate filled the ‘losing ground’ storyline more snugly than did Jeb Bush,” the study found. “Early in 2015, he had a large lead in the polls and enjoyed corresponding favorable coverage. As his support declined, however, so did the tone of his coverage.”

The Democratic side of the race received significantly less attention from the media, particularly during the early phase of the campaign in which Clinton jumped out to large polling leads over the likes of Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee. In terms of “good news” vs. “bad news,” Sanders was the beneficiary of the most favorable coverage during what the report calls “the invisible primary.”

Just as media coverage boosted Trump in the polls, it slowly ate away at Clinton’s advantage. Among Clinton, Trump, Sanders and Cruz, the former secretary of state earned the highest percentage of coverage related to issues — a relatively small 28 percent, while just 12 percent of Trump coverage related to issues. For Cruz, just 9 percent of coverage related to the issues, while 7 percent of coverage was issue-related for Sanders. But in issue-related coverage of Clinton, an overwhelming 84 percent was negative in tone, the study found, compared with 43 percent for Trump, 32 percent for Cruz and just 17 percent for Sanders.

Vox: It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician

This is an article from Vox

Updated by on June 7, 2016, 10:31 p.m. ET

This is the paradox of Hillary Clinton: She has achieved something no one else in the history of American politics has even come close to doing, yet she is widely considered an inept, flawed candidate.

These two things are not unrelated.

Twice now we have thought that it should have been easy for Clinton to do what no one has ever done before. Twice now we have dismissed her as a weak candidate and a flawed leader for struggling to break a barrier that no one else has ever come near breaking.

America has hosted 56 presidential elections — 33 of them before women received the right to vote. Exactly zero of those elections featured a female nominee from one of the two major political parties.

Until Hillary Clinton.

There is something about Clinton that makes it hard to appreciate the magnitude of her achievement. Or perhaps there is something about us that makes it hard to appreciate the magnitude of her achievement.

Perhaps, in ways we still do not fully appreciate, the reason no one has ever broken the glass ceiling in American politics is because it’s really fucking hard to break. Before Clinton, no one even came close.

Whether you like Clinton or hate her — and plenty of Americans hate her — it’s time to admit that the reason Clinton was the one to break it is because Clinton is actually really good at politics.

She’s just good at politics in a way we haven’t learned to appreciate.

How presidential campaigns favor male traits

Hillary Clinton has her flaws, of course. The email server. The speeches to Goldman Sachs. And just look at her unfavorable numbers! But what really defines coverage of Clinton is confusion over how she’s gotten so far without the animal charisma typical of politicians at her level.

There is something Rebecca Traister wrote in her terrific profile of Clinton that I have been thinking about for weeks. She began by admitting what everyone admits. Clinton is not a great campaigner. She does not give great speeches. She does not inspire. And she knows it. “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or President Obama,” Clinton has said.

Hillary Clinton Attends Get Out The Vote Rally In Los Angeles Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

The “in case you haven’t noticed” flashes through that sentence, a quick glimpse into the bitterness and hurt underlying Clinton’s self-deprecating admission. But there was once an excuse, Traister writes. Obama is “a masterful orator. Bill Clinton, too. Even George W. Bush was charismatic in his way.” Perhaps Clinton’s charisma simply suffered in comparison.

But Donald Trump? Are we really going to say that Clinton lacks the likability, the decency, and the eloquence of Donald J. Trump? Traister continues:

If, as in this election, a man who spews hate and vulgarity, with no comprehension of how government works, can become presidentially plausible because he is magnetic while a capable, workaholic woman who knows policy inside and out struggles because she is not magnetic, perhaps we should reevaluate magnetism’s importance. It’s worth asking to what degree charisma, as we have defined it, is a masculine trait. Can a woman appeal to the country in the same way we are used to men doing it?

Though those on both the right and the left moan about “woman cards,” it would be impossible, and dishonest, to not recognize gender as a central, defining, complicated, and often invisible force in this election. It is one of the factors that shaped Hillary Clinton, and it is one of the factors that shapes how we respond to her. Whatever your feelings about Clinton herself, this election raises important questions about how we define leadership in this country, how we feel about women who try to claim it, flawed though they may be.

It is not that no women possess a public magnetism; Sarah Palin could rock a room, and Elizabeth Warren can work a crowd. But the quality we adore in presidential candidates — the ability to stand up and speak loudly, confidently, and fluently on topics you may know nothing about — is gendered.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both excellent yellers, and we love them for it. Nobody likes it when Hillary Clinton yells. As my colleague Emily Crockett has written, research shows people don’t like it when women yell in general:

Even though women are interrupted more often and talk less than men, people still think women talk more. People get annoyed by verbal tics like “vocal fry” and “upspeak” when women use them, but often don’t even notice it when men do. The same mental amplification process makes people see an assertive woman as “aggressive,” which gets in the way of women’s personal and professional advancement. Women are much more likely to be perceived as “abrasive” and get negative performance reviews as a result — which puts them in a double bind when they try to “lean in” and assertively negotiate salaries.

It may not be impossible for a woman to win the presidency the way we are used to men doing it, but it is unlikely. The way a woman is likeliest to win will defy our expectations.

Perhaps that’s why we don’t appreciate Clinton’s strengths as a candidate. She’s winning a process that evolved to showcase stereotypically male traits using a stereotypically female strategy.

And it’s working.

A campaign of relationships, not speeches

There is a narrative that has emerged in the Democratic primary, and it goes something like this: Hillary Clinton locked up the Democratic establishment long before the primary began in earnest. She’s the wife of an ex-president. She was endorsed by virtually every elected official in the party and pretty much every major interest group. Her dominance of the inside game was unprecedented for a non-incumbent candidate. And she used this elite firewall to choke off Sanders’s revolution.

When Sanders’s supporters argue that the election was rigged against their candidate, this is what they are talking about. Sanders, they feel, did what you normally have to do to win an election: He generated more enthusiasm, brought in more voters, raised more money, gave better speeches, and polled higher in head-to-head matchups against the Republican candidate. It was only Clinton’s pact with the Democratic establishment that stopped his rise.

In this telling, the way Clinton won the primary is the reason her victory feels hollow: It was nearly preordained, and the seriousness of the challenge Sanders posed just shows what a flawed candidate she really is.

Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders Spar At Democratic Debate In Brooklyn Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

But another way to look at the primary is that Clinton employed a less masculine strategy to win. She won the Democratic primary by spending years slowly, assiduously, building relationships with the entire Democratic Party. She relied on a more traditionally female approach to leadership: creating coalitions, finding common ground, and winning over allies. Today, 208 members of Congress have endorsed Clinton; only eight have endorsed Sanders.

This work is a grind — it’s not big speeches, it doesn’t come with wide applause, and it requires an emotional toughness most human beings can’t summon.

But Clinton is arguably better at that than anyone in American politics today. In 2000, she won a Senate seat that meant serving amidst Republicans who had destroyed her health care bill and sought to impeach her husband. And she kept her head down, found common ground, and won them over.

“We have become, actually, good friends,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who served as one of the Republican prosecutors during impeachment. “And that was a surprise to both of us.” (It is perhaps not coincidental that Graham is one of the few elected Republicans now calling on his fellow Republicans to retract their endorsements of Donald Trump.)

And Clinton isn’t just better — she’s relentless. After losing to Barack Obama, she rebuilt those relationships, campaigning hard for him in the general, serving as his secretary of state, reaching out to longtime allies who had crushed her campaign by endorsing him over her. (This, by the way, is why I don’t think you can dismiss Clinton’s victory as reflections of her husband’s success: She’s won her own elections and secured a major appointment in a subsequent administration.)

Now Obama says that Clinton “had a tougher job throughout that primary than I did. She had to do everything that I had to do, except, like Ginger Rogers, backwards in heels.” It’s been clear since early in the primary that he is firmly in her corner, and his endorsement is believed to be imminent.

President Obama Speaks On The Death Of US Ambassador In Libya Christopher Stevens Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In this telling, in order to do something as hard as becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major political party, she had to do something extraordinarily difficult: She had to build a coalition, supported by a web of relationships, that dwarfed in both breadth and depth anything a non-incumbent had created before. It was a plan that played to her strengths, as opposed to her (entirely male) challengers’ strengths. And she did it.

Hillary Clinton is a generationally talented politician — albeit across a different set of dimensions than men tend to be talented politicians.

When she lost in 2008, Clinton said that after her campaign, it would no longer be remarkable to see women win presidential primaries and nearly win their party’s nomination. But no women did it in 2012, and she was the only woman to do it in 2016. It is still not easy, and it is still not unremarkable, for a woman to succeed in presidential politics. Clinton’s victory is a remarkable achievement, and it shouldn’t be dismissed.

Correction: This post initially misstated the number of congressional endorsements Clinton and Sanders have received.

How Donald ‘Zoolander’ Trump Killed The American Left, or How The Left Became Trump Apologists

I hope you will agree by the end of this post, not only that the American Left (AL) has reached its expiration date early in the new millennium, but also that it was Trump who, unbeknownst to himself,  delivered to the Left its coup de gráce. Let’s  declare the American Left to be D.O.T.A: Dead on Trump’s Arrival.

Let me show you, before its burial, two pieces of the AL’ sad corpus mortuum in the form of two excerpts from two articles representing the new American Left’s mantra: that fraudster-Trump is not to be feared because he is an innocent well-intentioned schmuck who deserves our vote over conniving Hillary Clinton:

4 Reasons Not to Fear Donald Trump
by David Macaray June 3, 2016 at CounterPunch

mac

People are actually afraid that this narcissistic, non-religious, uber-pragmatic Manhattan real estate tycoon would launch a thermonuclear war? That is even more absurd than the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) inviting Hillary Clinton to speak to their group, given that this woman was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, the most breathtakingly anti-union corporation in America.

Trump may be a pompous, clownish ass, but Hillary Clinton is a world-class dissembler whose most prominent personality trait happens to be pure, old-fashioned, unbridled Ambition. While Trump’s reason for wanting to be president remains a friggin’ mystery, Hillary’s reason for wanting the job can be expressed in four words: It’s my turn, goddamnit.

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton “more dangerous” than Donald Trump

“But this is what we’re fed. ‘He’s so dangerous. He’s so dangerous,’” Sarandon said, shrugging off Trump’s most controversial rhetoric as too implausible to be considered a serious threat.

“Seriously I am not worried about a wall being built, he is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country… but seriously, I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from, and I do know that she is no transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it”

It brings tears to my eyes, that dead body; seriously. The AL calls Trump an “uber-pragmatic real estate tycoon”, not a racist corrupt fraudster elitist aspiring to be an oligarch/dictator of the USA. You will hear less and less the decrepit AL calling Trump a corrupt elitist or anything worse.

Trump Apologists

The AL’s death is coming in the form of painful political and emotional identification with this hate-spewing enemy of the working class and of humanity, with this unconditionally and merciless elitist, racist, misogynistic and homelessness- producing real-estate/casino mogul fraudster . They have become, on their death-bed,  Trump’s Apologists. They defend and explain him to the working class so that they (the workers) don’t have to “fear Donald Trump” and vote for him instead of for ‘evil she-devil’ Hillary Clinton

The aristocratic Leftist ‘Marxist’ intelligentsia sees itself as the intellectuals of the working class. Their self-assigned job is to ‘educate’ the ‘intellectually deficient’ working class on how to do the ‘revolution’. But the following quote by Mr. Macalay tells us either that they are intellectually/politically confused and, consequently, incapable of ‘educating’ the working class, or that they have turned against the working class and embraced the elite they claim to hate:

“Trump’s reason for wanting to be president remains a friggin’ mystery”

How can the reasons this elitist have for wanting to be a president be a “friggin’ mystery”  to any professional Leftists in professional Leftist’s magazines, whom one has to assume are well versed on Marxist theory? How can they unashamedly express that statement, with sympathetic under  tone and all, and pass it as a ‘politically intelligent Marxist’ opinion? I’m just shocked and horrified by it.

That comment published by CounterPunch not only shows frustration by the author at not understanding Trump’s intentions, it and the whole article is written in an attitude of sympathy for the man.

According to Mr. Macaray, Trump is a buffoon, not an elitist, not a member of the class that enriches itself by scamming the poor, the working and middle classes. Not ONCE in the article is the word ‘elitist’ used to refer to fraudster-Trump.

First, it can’t be a surprise to any Marxists that elitist Trump is running FOR PERSONAL POWER. But the AL thinks he is running because he is an ‘anti-globalism revolutionary’. More on that later. Second, his ‘reasons’ must be denounced, not confused or denied, precisely because he is running on a racist/misogynistic/fascist platform.

Instead, the AL has renounced its duty to enlighten the people, and instead are brainwashing them by portraying elitist Trump as a magnanimous fool whom we should support when Sanders is officially defeated.

 

A the end of the article Macalay  implies that trickster-Trump is a victim of the establishment (oh, like Sanders, let’s feel his pain) and that, if he becomes president…poor him:

A “liberal” Trump is boxed in by a conservative Congress, and a weird, “impulsive” Trump is de-fanged by the Democrats.

(highlight by me.) Macalay probably meant neutered, not ‘de-fanged’. From dismissing Trump’ statements about his ‘readiness’ to use nuclear force against anyone who gets under his skin and  his racist/misogynistic rants, to admiring his virile impulsiveness, Trump Apologists have his back covered, explaining and justifying his attacks on anyone who is not male and white and millionaire. They admire his impulsiveness! Since when that is a personality trait to be admired in a president?!

As for Susy Sarandon:

“But this is what we’re fed. ‘He’s so dangerous. He’s so dangerous,’” Sarandon said, shrugging off Trump’s most controversial rhetoric as too implausible to be considered a serious threat.

Someone ought to remind her that Adolf Hitler was dismissed as a crazy angry German before he was elected; no one believed he could take control of the nation.

By stripping the class element from their opinions, that Trump is NOT an anti-working class member of the elite, the AL  exonerates tax-evading-Trump of the same ‘crimes’ they comfortably attach to Clinton:

whose most prominent personality trait happens to be pure, old-fashioned, unbridled Ambition

Trump, even though a member of the elite,  a callous profit seeking  elitist whose idea of education policy is creating a Trump University to scam the ignorant  elements in the middle class,  is free of ambition, his personality traits are, according to the American Left, innocence mixed with childish ‘buffoonery’: he is a well-intentioned fool. Hillary Clinton, well, she is the boggy woman of the  American Left: they are literally TERRIFIED of her, she causes them to have nightmares and to go unhinged making conspiracy theories about her.

Some of the SCARY things Hillary says that terrifies the decrepit American Left

The American Left has been dying a slow death since the 1980s, in my view, becoming less relevant and more insignificant with the passing of each political crisis. But their death was made official when they decided to embrace elitist/racist/misogynist Donald Trump and package him for the working class.

It was maybe an act of self-delivered euthanasia to spare themselves of the pain of irrelevancy and to expedite their death. Had Trump not show up in the primaries, the AL would still be zombieying around. When Trump said “to make America great again”, the AL drank the Kool Aid…died and morphed into this:

morphoed

But what is the source of both the admiration for Trump and the intense hatred of Hillary Clinton?

That’s the topic of my next post.

 

Madam President: Is Hillary Clinton About to Become the Most Powerful Woman Ever?

Hillary-Clinton

Madam President: Is Hillary Clinton About to Become the Most Powerful Woman Ever?

By Joyce Tyldesley | 4:00 am, May 27, 2016 [Reprinted from HEATSTREET]

If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidential election she will, in January 2017, be inaugurated as leader of the most powerful country — economically and militarily — that the world has ever known.

 

She will acquire an impressive range of personal powers, including the authority to sign or veto legislation, appoint senior officials, pardon criminals, negotiate treaties, command the armed forces and, thanks to America’s nuclear and drone capabilities, bring mass or highly targeted death to any corner of the earth. Her influence will undoubtedly be felt by millions of people living far beyond her own country. But would President Hillary Clinton be the most powerful woman ever to have lived? More than that, when was the last time a woman was the most powerful person on the planet?

There have been several strong contenders for the title of world’s most powerful woman, but not as many as we might perhaps expect. Throughout history, men have played the dominant political role. Women have always been able to influence the deeds of men — their sons, husbands, brothers, and lovers — but the hidden power behind the throne is both difficult to prove and impossible to quantify. Many women have stepped forward to rule on behalf of infant sons and absent husbands, only to have their unofficial reigns “lost” within the official male reign. Some women, Mary the mother of Jesus being perhaps the most obvious example, have had immense cultural impact, but wielded little actual power during their lifetime.

The women discussed below were all able to act on their own authority. All exerted a powerful influence within their countries and outside them. Unlike an American president, none of these women was voted into office and none could easily be removed from power. All but one continued in her role until death.

Queen Victoria
Just over a century ago, Victoria was not only queen of the United Kingdom, she was also (among other titles) Empress of India. Her nine children made suitably regal marriages linking Victoria to the royal families of Europe, and her grandchildren continued this tradition. She is often cited as an example of a powerful woman. But, as a constitutional monarch, Victoria had little actual power. She was able to advise her government, but could not take further action. And, as she was a relatively private monarch, her ability to influence her subject was limited. She probably does not belong on this list, as her role was that of a national figurehead rather than a powerful woman.

Catherine the Great
The Empress Catherine — known today as Catherine the Great — ruled Russia from 1762-1796. Born the daughter of a minor Prussian prince, she married into the Russian royal family and came to power following the overthrow and subsequent assassination of her husband, Peter III. Under Catherine’s rule, the borders of the Russian Empire were extended both to the south and the west, with an estimated 200,000 square miles of new territory, including Belarus, Lithuania, and the Crimea, being added. Back home, she continued the westernization started by her late husband’s grandfather, Peter the Great. Her long reign came to be regarded as a golden age: a time when the arts and architecture flourished, and new cities were founded.

Maria Theresa of Austria
Maria Theresa of Austria became the last ruling Habsburg in 1740, following the death of her father Charles VI. The subsequent War of the Austrian Succession involved most of the powers of Europe. Maria Theresa emerged victorious to rule over much of central Europe, the Balkans, and Northern Italy. Unable, as a woman, to become Holy Roman Emperor she secured the title for her husband, Franz I. Having re-organized and modernized the ineffectual Austrian army she was prepared to fight to defend her lands; indeed she declared that if she had not been almost continually pregnant for 20 years (she bore 16 children, 13 of whom lived beyond infancy) she would have fought in battle herself. Amongst her many achievements, Maria Theresa introduced compulsory schooling for boys and girls, and developed an efficient administrative system that allowed the once ailing Habsburg Empire to flourish.

Queen Elizabeth I
Queen Elizabeth inherited the thrones of England and Ireland in 1558, following the death of her half-sister, the staunchly Catholic Queen Mary. Elizabeth established and became Supreme Governor of the Protestant Church, which was to evolve onto the highly influential Church of England. As the “Virgin Queen,” she became a cultural icon, celebrated in the art and writings that flourished during her reign. Her foreign policy was mainly defensive, although she was prepared to fight if necessary. Faced with rebellion from Catholic Ireland, she imposed a harsh retribution that left many of her subjects starving. Elizabeth was undoubtedly powerful within her own countries. Her influence outside this relatively limited sphere — especially in mainland Europe — was limited.

Wu Zetian
Wu Zetian, the only female emperor of China, ruled during the brief restored Zhou Dynasty (690-705). Wu was the beautiful and extremely well-educated daughter of chancellor Wu Shihuo. Her rise to power started when she was selected as a concubine by Emperor Taizong. Following Taizong’s death she ruthlessly removed all rivals to become the empress consort of his successor, Gaozong. When her husband died, Wu, now dowager empress, remained the effective ruler of China during the reigns of two of her sons. Finally, in 690 CE she ordered her second son to abdicate, and took his place. She ruled as emperor in her own right until, during the last year of her life, she herself was forced to abdicate in favor of her third son.

Cleopatra VII
Cleopatra VII inherited the throne of Egypt from her father, Ptolemy XII, in 51 BCE. Recovering from an inauspicious start, which saw Egypt poised on the brink of civil war, she was able to stabilize her country and form an alliance with Julius Caesar that ensured security for her people. Following Caesar’s assassination, a new alliance with Mark Anthony eventually led to the restoration of the Ptolemaic Empire. Cleopatra now ruled a large part of the eastern Mediterranean world. Unfortunately, this proved to be a short-lived triumph. Cleopatra and Mark Anthony were defeated by the Roman Octavian (soon to become the Emperor Augustus) at the Battle of Actium, and Cleopatra committed suicide in 30 BCE.

Hatshepsut
Cleopatra was not Egypt’s only reigning queen. Almost 1,500 years earlier, 18th Dynasty Egypt was ruled by the female pharaoh Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut technically ruled alongside her young co-regent, Tuthmosis III, but effectively she acted as sole ruler, and as such she became head of the army, the civil service, and the priesthood. Her purported ability to communicate with the gods allowed Hatshepsut to spread the good news that she was the daughter of the great god Amen of Thebes. As long-standing artistic tradition expected the king of Egypt to have the appearance of a fit young man, Hatshepsut’s official art depicted her with a male body dressed in male clothes and accessories, including a false beard. However, her texts made it clear to all who could read that Egypt’s pharaoh was a woman. Hatshepsut’s reign was a peaceful one, characterized by monumental building and foreign trade. Historian Tom Holland has suggested onTwitter that Hapshetsut’s reign in Egypt – as the ruler of the world’s then most powerful nation – was the last time a woman was the most powerful person on earth.

Having considered the careers of these powerful women, we can see that each was able to influence events both within and outside her own community during her own lifetime. Some controlled vast territories; others had access to vast wealth. However, none of these women had access to the modern technologies which allow the image, thoughts and deeds of the President of the United States of America to be experienced quite literally worldwide. Nor did they have access to the weaponry and financial resources that the president can employ.

Were she to ascend to the presidency, would Mrs. Clinton become the most powerful woman ever? On this evidence, it seems very likely that she would.

 

Dr Joyce Tyldesley is an Egyptologist with a specialist interest in the women of the ancient world.

Cornel West Calls Trump™ His ‘Brother’

cornell

Mr. West, please do explain, how do you, a Black man, and supposedly intelligent,  find ‘brotherhood‘ with an unashamed white xenophobic, misogynistic and racist self promoter member of the elite ‘billionaire class’?

The basic meaning of the  word ‘brotherhood’ (not delving into its sociological/political meaning) used to be, until you used it to refer to Trump™,

  • feelings of friendship, support, and understanding between people

  • a group or organization of people who have the same interests, jobs, etc.

Now “brotherhood” has the same value as the word ‘politician’. Now it is a word you can use to con people into the false believe that they share with you emotional, historic and political interests.

Firstly, What type of degree, education or life-experience  have you missed in your life that would have  helped  you in learning  and understanding  that Donald Trump™ doesn’t harbor towards you  the same warm fussy feelings of friendship and understanding which you have publicly expressed towards him, as if intending to shame the rest of us for having supported you at any time in this life?

Secondly, if you look a bit closely, you will notice that  he belongs to an organization which has nothing in common with your interests as a Black man. He doesn’t even bother to make an effort to appeal to your race or mine (I’m Latin/Puerto Rican).

Is it Because Hillary Doesn’t Have a ‘dick‘?

The only reason you, a Black man, may have found ‘brotherhood’ with Trump™ is because of what you have in common with him as a human being: a dick. Otherwise, explain how come you feel such intense hatred for that woman, Hillary Clinton, vilifying her and accusing her of all types of crimes without providing evidence, but you have absolutely zero feelings of hatred towards Trump™ ?

It can’t be about ‘morality’. Are you refusing to read and hear Trump™ ‘s last week statements to continue to be blind about him?  How is Trump™ more moral than Hillary, or moral at all?  He is liar! Everybody knows that, except you? Even your other ‘brother’, Sanders, knows it. I hope never to hear him calling Trump™  “my brother”: I would retire from the human race.

Can’t you recognize tyranny, fascism and bigotry in Trump™? What happened to you, man?

cornell2

‘That’s why Trump is my bro now, he is awakening humanity to…something’.

Money is Trump™ ‘s only interest. When asked by Kimmel on TV yesterday if he was willing to have a debate with your other ‘brother, Sanders, Trump™ asked “How much is he willing to pay me?”

I can’t get my self to enumerate for you Trump™ ‘s many immoral statements. I have a feeling that you are not in a mental state of mind to understand the difference between a contemptible and amoral ‘business man’ running for president, and Malcolm X: for you they are the same entities because, in your puny mind, you see them fighting the “establishment”. Hey, if Trump™ is attacking Hillary, he must be against the oligarchs, just as Malcolm X did. Trump™is your ‘brother’ now.

You are a sad man who is trying to suck up the power that you perceive in Trump™. He doesn’t “say it as it is”, he is a bully. You like that in him, that’s the source of your “brotherhood” with Trump™. It’s not about Hillary “lying”, because then you would have to hate lying-Trump™, but you don’t.

So your hatred towards Hillary Clinton can’t be about morality; it has to be because she is a woman ascending to power, and you can’t bear the thought of the nation being commanded by a strong woman. Stop hiding your misogynistic hatred of Hillary behind her “many crimes”.

Fortunately, there are many more men who feel secure in their manhood as to not being afraid of a woman trying to move this nation forward, than men like Cornel West who fears that his dick will fall off if a woman becomes president of the US.

MSM Dumps Hillary and Crowns Trump President

The very first line in this article at Bezo’s WaPo is designed for you to be put off by Hillary herself and by her campaign platform, highlights by me:

Hillary Clinton’s official campaign platform is now twice as long as “Hamlet”: seventy-three thousand six hundred forty-five words of policy ideas. One hundred seventy-four pages. And growing.

From there, Bezos’ WaPo goes to shred her platform and, more shocking, to praise Trump as a revolutionary and her as the old status quo defender:

But, at its heart, this wordy list amounts to a statement of Clinton’s confidence in two things.The status quo. And the federal bureaucracy.

The other two candidates left in this presidential race want to overhaul American government. Clinton mainly wants to tinker with its parts. In many cases, her plans involve adding small — but intricate — new tasks for the bureaucracy, designed to make government smarter, more generous and more just.

This article amounts to a tacit turn by the MSM and the elite it represents towards crowing Trump the next president of the USA.

As I mentioned in Note #5, the MSM is talking 24/7 about Trump, ignoring Hillary 99% of the time, and bringing her only to portray her as worse than Trump. The idea is to make him so familiar and mainstream that anyone, Hillary, i.e., would come across as an obstacle to this now familiar and ‘revolutionary’ man.

Why would they want to destroy her and defend Trump? No, it’s not for “clicks”; that would be a dangerous naive thinking in the part of the voters. The MSM is not an intangible thing, it is the property of real human beings with real class interests.

As I have argued on this blog, Trump’ apparent ideological position, “anti-globalist”, has been a bone of contention for the GOP; but that would change once he makes peace with the party leaders. He is a billionaire, his alliance is NOT with you. Cheney, who came on board with him, will train him in the art of government by and for the elite.

People, you have to wake up. The elite, via its MSM and the not so mainstream who hate Hillary for being a ‘feminist’ woman, will put you to sleep and guide you to vote for Trump.

BIG MISTAKE  not to wake up NOW.

Clinton’s wonky policies of fine-grained complexity contrast with rivals’ grandiose ideas

 

 

From Vox: Why the media will lift Trump up and tear Clinton down

by David Roberts on May 5, 2016, 7:30 a.m. ET

It now seems all but certain that the presidential election will see Donald Trump face off against Hillary Clinton.

We find ourselves at the tail end of a brief period of clarity. For the past few months, virtually everyone outside of the 40 percent of Republican primary voters who carried him to victory has agreed that Trump is not fit to be president.

Marco Rubio called him a “con man.” Mitt Romney called him “a phony, a fraud.” Cruz called him an “amoral pathological liar” and said if he is elected “this country could well plunge into the abyss.” Lindsey Graham said Trump would lead to “another 9/11.” David Brooks called him “epically unprepared to be president.” George Will said that “his running mate will be unqualified for high office because he or she will think Trump is qualified.” The house organ of conservatism, National Review, condemned him in florid terms. A Super PAC was created just to stop him.

This Clinton camp video is effectively narrated by Mitt Romney https://t.co/E4Iynf1SuZ

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) May 4, 2016
No one has captured the case better than longtime conservative political analyst Jay Cost:

As Cost emphasizes, the issue here is not (merely) ideological — it’s about basic fitness and competence. A man with Trump’s temperament and habits could do real, lasting, no-joke damage as the leader of the free world.

Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, has demonstrated a basic level of competence. She understands how policy and government work. She’s not openly racist; she hasn’t encouraged street violence. There’s no risk that she would disrupt the international order or cause an economic crisis out of pique.

That’s a really, really low bar. But it’s the only bar she has to clear in this contest. Almost irrespective of what you think of Clinton’s politics or her policies, she is manifestly more prepared to run the federal government than Donald Trump.

The number of people who recognize this elemental fact about the election, however, has probably already reached and passed its peak. It will decline from here on out. The moment of clarity is already ending.
The political ecosystem needs two balanced parties to survive
Why is clarity passing? Because it appears Trump is actually going to be the Republican nominee. It’s really happening. And the US political ecosystem — media, consultants, power brokers, think tanks, foundations, officeholders, the whole thick network of institutions and individuals involved in national politics — cannot deal with a presidential election in which one candidate is obviously and uncontroversially the superior (if not sole acceptable) choice. The machine is simply not built to handle a race that’s over before it’s begun.

There are entire classes of professionals whose jobs are premised on the model of two roughly equal sides, clashing endlessly. The Dance of Two Parties sustains the consultants and activists.

That giant clicking sound is 10,000 Republican consultants and activists deleting their #NeverTrump tweets.

— Paul Mitchell (@paulmitche11) May 4, 2016
Trump campaign now being flooded with offers from seasoned operatives to help the campaign, Rick Wiley tells me.

— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) May 4, 2016
It sustains the party hacks and grifters.

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016
.@newtgingrich: “@realDonaldTrump may turn out to be the most effective, anti-left leader in our lifetime.” #Hannity pic.twitter.com/2jen2RkYH2

— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 4, 2016
There’s a lot about Donald Trump that I don’t like, but I’ll vote for Trump over Hillary any day.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 4, 2016
.@BobbyJindal: “Today we have got two choices. It’s either @realDonaldTrump or @HillaryClinton.” #Hannity

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 4, 2016
And it sustains the media, which is what I want to discuss below.

Among all these classes of professionals, all these institutions, that whole superstructure of US politics built around two balanced sides, there will be a tidal pull to normalize this election, to make it Coca-Cola versus Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola versus sewer water.

The US political system knows how to play the former script; it doesn’t know how to play the latter. There’s a whole skein of practices, relationships, and money flows developed around the former. The latter would occasion a reappraisal of, well, everything. Scary.

So there will be a push to lift Donald Trump up and bring Hillary Clinton down, until they are at least something approximating two equivalent choices.

(Photo by Bilgin S. Sasmaz/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)Same basic deal, right?
It’s not a conspiracy; it won’t be coordinated. It doesn’t need to be. It’s just a process of institutions, centers of power and influence, responding to the incentive structure that’s evolved around them. The US political ecosystem needs this election to be competitive.

The media cannot countenance a lopsided race
No institution needs a competitive election more than the media, especially what remains of the “objective” campaign media. Imagine writing this headline:

Trump, bad candidate, likely to lose

Now imagine writing it again and again for six months — and watching your web traffic dwindle into nothing. Sad!

The campaign press requires, for its ongoing health and advertising revenue, a real race. It needs controversies. “Donald Trump is not fit to be president” may be the accurate answer to pretty much every relevant question about the race, but it’s not an interesting answer. It’s too final, too settled. No one wants to click on it.

What’s more, the campaign media’s self-image is built on not being partisan, which precludes adjudicating political disputes. How does that even work if one side is offering up a flawed centrist and the other is offering up a vulgar xenophobic demagogue?

It would be profoundly out of character for reporters to spend the six months between now and the election writing, again and again, that one side’s candidate is a liar and a racist and an egomaniac. It would be uncomfortable, personally and professionally.

 

What we’ve learned today abt life thru Nov if Trump wins:some reporters can’t be objective abt him & left/right critics will sound the same

— Mark Halperin (@MarkHalperin) April 27, 2016
It’s true that the media has been uncharacteristically blunt in its criticism of Trump during the primary, mainly because almost every source it considers legitimate hates Trump, including the Republican establishment. To date, the anti-Trump position has been safely inside the Washington consensus.

That will change once the GOP apparatus inevitably swings around behind Trump and begins accusing journalists who write critical stories of bias. If there’s one thing the GOP apparatus knows how to do, it’s ensure that there’s always another side, that reporters get smacked every time they move past “one hand, other hand” coverage.

Already we’ve seen reporters leap at the Trump “pivot” story several times, though Trump’s newfound presidential tone never seems to last even a full 24 hours.

It will not take much for “new, grown-up Trump” stories to take hold once he is the nominee. The media and the GOP apparatus both need those stories, the former for “balance,” the latter for paychecks.

In short order, Trump’s obvious unfitness for office — today widely acknowledged across both parties and in the mainstream media — will become a partisan observation, something Democrats say. Consultants from the two parties will sit across from one another on cable news shows and squabble about it, as nature intended.

What we’re accustomed to; what we need.
To the extent that Trump can’t be lifted, Clinton will be brought down
Just as the media will need to elevate Trump, it will need to bring Clinton down. Going after Clinton will be journalists’ default strategy for proving that they’re not biased. They will need opportunities to be “tough” toward Clinton, or at least to engage in the kind of performative toughness valued in campaign journalism, to demonstrate their continued independence.

Trump will give them opportunities. And it’s not going to be through policy critique, a domain in which Clinton towers over him. It’s going to be through tawdry, nasty shit.

Consider the attacks Trump has used to triumph in the primary: Cruz’s father helped kill JFK; Cruz is not eligible to be president; Rubio is an effete liar who sweats too much; Kasich is a disgusting eater; Jeb Bush has low testosterone; Fiorina has an unpleasant face. His nickname for Clinton is already “crooked Hillary.” He’s already dredged up her husband’s affairs and her alleged role in them.

Consider what Trump will do when he’s behind, being bested by a woman, at risk of national humiliation, struggling to unite a party that is connected to him only through a shared hatred of Clinton. The mind boggles.
Will the Washington press corps chase after ridiculous personal attacks and conspiracy theories regarding Hillary Clinton, whispered into their ears by right-wing hacks?

Ha ha. Have you met the Washington press corps? They have been doing that since the early 1990s. Clinton rules mean guilty until proven innocent, then and now. The Washington media is a machine that transforms crap about Clintons into headlines, and Trump is a bottomless supply of crap.

Along with that, Clinton being Clinton, and Clintonworld being Clintonworld, there is likely to be no shortage of missteps, malapropisms, unforced errors, and poorly chosen surrogates to keep the media busy even without Trump’s help. Stories purporting to (finally) bring Clinton down never lack for clicks. She is, after all, the most disliked national politician in American life … except Donald Trump.

So there you have it: an obvious choice that numerous institutions and individuals are committed to making as difficult, as unpleasant, and as drawn-out as possible. It augurs a substance-free, policy-averse, crap-happy campaign season, degraded even by the diminished standards of contemporary US politics. Wake me when it’s over.

Trump’s Art Of The Deal: Leaving Mental Illness and Depressed Economy In His Wake

Do you really, but REALLY want to stop Trump? It’s so easy! The MSM can talk about his millions gained from promoting an illness called ‘compulsive gambling’. What are the odds the MSM will go there? The same as  you winning the lotto.

Don’t expect the MSM to attack the elite class. Pouring the cleansing light over Trump’s so-called multi-billion ’empire’ would inevitably put many oligarchs’ head on the guillotine, for their billions too come at the cost of a nation’s health and well-being.

All those casino moguls feed the political elite class and the MSM; don’t bet on having the moguls exposed publicly by the same media and politicians who lied to the public and disregarded their constituents’ pleas to not open more casinos in their states. Anyone can check the stats showing casinos have not been the economical jackpot the people were made to believe  they would win in order to accept having them in their states.

Now the MSM is giving 24/7 coverage to Trump. You may think is bad coverage, but keep your eyes peeled and your ears unwaxed to hear the subtext. By not denouncing the source of his ’empire’ they are helping him: the implication is that he and his businesses are ‘clean’. And invariably they give more air to his attacks on Hillary than to hers on him. While he is ‘most hated’, he can ‘redeem’ himself by ‘looking and sounding presidential’; Hillary is not given that opportunity.

Money gambled in casinos is money that doesn’t come back to the communities. And the impact of the mental illness called ‘compulsive gambling’ is devastating to the person and the states. Religious fanatics are supporting Trump with bible in hand, but no one talks to them about the contradiction of supporting a business man enriching through immoral transactions, not that they care. Few people do. But it is because they are been lied to about the casino business.

The MSM is the art of deception, don’t expect to see it by just turning your TV on. You have to be critical of what they feed you, which means you can’t be passively absorbing the messages.

So, yes, bringing Trump down is easy if you have the will to do it. But, IMHO, it is becoming clearer that, despite all that ‘negative’ attention, the oligarchs and the MSM would rather have a corrupt billionaire in power than a ‘feminist’ woman, no matter that she is not a ‘threat’ to the nation.

Think about it for a moment: if Trump is so corrosive and ‘toxic’, why don’t they give more and better coverage to Hillary, or even Sanders, to counter him? The regular people is more open to having a woman president; the white male oligarchs are less inclined to it. And don’t dismiss either the fact that the Israelis are not ‘convinced’ that Hillary will do their bidding for them. These are some of the hidden political elements driving the deceptive MSM’s messages. It’s not only Trump they are ‘attacking’.

The MSM gave you the invasion of Iraq and now they give you Trump.

https://i2.wp.com/cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/09/18/the-true-story-of-donald-trump-s-florida-casino-fail/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48085790.cached.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTy-sEc9Mstp9hmH5pUV4BvTffpvZgKiNdRBoekhOTqTiDKwfaojg

Note#2: It’s The Globalists, Silly.

It is pretty accurate, IMHO, to say that the planet is in a state of chaos, both environmentally and socially. See France’s Nuit Debout youth’s revolution, the Middle East, Latin America…to the USA. The malaise is global, and so is its origin: globalism.

It’s not just me saying it. As I have discussed on this blog, it is the globalists themselves who have diagnosed the problem. Our current presidential elections crisis (both parties are being shaken by popular anger), according to globalist Larry Sanders, is evidence that the success of globalism has peaked, and is high noon time for the elite to step back and re-think how to cope with the consequences of its success if they want to have more of it:

This [globalization] has proved more successful than could reasonably have been hoped.

…Elites can continue pursuing and defending [global] integration, hoping to win sufficient popular support — but, on the evidence of the US presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course.

…And they see the disintegration that accompanies global integration, as communities suffer when big employers lose to foreign competitors.

…The core of the revolt against globalintegration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense, not wholly unwarranted, that it is a project carried out by elites for elites with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people — who see the globalisation agenda as being set by big companies playing off one country against another.

…The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences.

This is likely to result in a hiatus in new global integration

…efforts to preserve what is in place while relying on technology and growth in the developing world to drive further integration.

The globalists have their think-tanks to give them the information/data needed to assess, in the words of former mayor of NY Ed Koch, “how am I doing?”. They have been talking, among themselves only, about the impact of globalism on human beings, culture and society at larger since at least 1970 when they were beginning to carry out their global take-over of our lives. We, however, base our political decisions on the facts given to us by FoxNews, CNN…We certainly don’t have time for heavy thinking after a hard work day. If we let them, they will ‘fix’ the problem for us.

We need to get off the two-party system, educate ourselves about the nature of globalism and how it is changing  our society, personalities and even how we perceive reality.

We need an organization where fighting globalism is the first point in the platform, then the environment, animal rights, children and women’s rights, the right to work, health services…all of them on one platform.

Sit there peacefully if you think you can get that from the duopoly, ’cause you’re gonna get tired of waiting on your feet for it to deliver. They will give you what they want and you will have to love it.

Until then, Hillary is our only option in these elections.

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/larry-summers-presidential-elections-crisis-evidence-that-globalism-may-have-run-its-course/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/trump-globalism-and-working-class/

Mourning Sanders’ Revolution

It’s safe to say that the ‘hope’ of the daydreaming angry youngsters of marching into the democratic party to ravish it from inside and build…something, we are still waiting to find out what were they trying to build there, that hope is gone.

The dream that Sanders could become the president of the USA has rudely awaken to reality. What started as ‘I’m here to raise the issues’ became ‘I’m here to be the president of the USA’. No one noticed the transition, therein the beginning of the delusion.

What did they achieve while they were there ripping Hillary Clinton (HC) to pieces instead of putting their energy into building a movement outside of the paws of the oligarchy? Well, they achieved another unnecessary bout of disillusion and disappointment; and possibly giving Trump the presidency.  Next comes the depression.

But…but…I told you this would happen to you; I have been saying it since January in my blog for those of you who found me at the WaPo. You only have yourselves to blame for your sadness and hopelessness. Expect to go through the same process four years from now because you haven’t learned the lesson that, for leftists, there is no place inside the duopoly. You criticize it and then march into it behind the next charismatic leader  vying for personal power.

As I said in this blog recently, the left is already casting blame on Sanders for their disappointment, refusing to look into their own sorry leftists selves. Yes, I’m pretty much frustrated and it shows; but can you blame me for that?

Don’t blame Sanders, I never blamed him for what I knew was to come. The only reason the left can’t look into itself to evaluate their participation in these primaries is because there is no leftist movement. Only people who are organized can look into how they are doing; unorganized followers don’t have to do that.

So the call is for you, leftists, individually. Look at why you keep following charismatic leaders of the establishment.

As for Hillary…she never said she is doing a revolution. She is offering policies, Sanders promised a revolution, a bumper sticker slogan with nothing to back it up. I can’t follow that. But I can vote for HC and try to do work outside the democratic party to build a third-party. I will not attack her and then find myself with no alternatives against Trump. Any leftist or progressive who thinks that Trump is a better option should be ashamed of calling him or herself a ‘progressive’.

Neither can I follow leftists whose misogyny is so patent that they find common ground in it with Trump. That leftists’ misogyny is so 1960s.

I’m reading articles at the Brookings Institution, the think-tank of the oligarchy. It shows the elite is organized, maybe divided, but they put their money and effort to advance their goals. They know how their globalism has destroyed the middle class here. They are planning to put some band aids to the system.

The left has nothing, no organization, no vision to counter the oligarchs; only personal attacks on one woman whom they have stigmatized as the sole cause of the destruction of the middle class.

You, the left, is offering nothing to the middle class. When you start offering something, call me.

Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a rally in Wilmington, Del., on Monday.

If Not Hillary (And Certainly Not A Chance For Bernie), Then who?

I ended my previous post about how the elite is getting ready to quell the people’s anger stemming from the devastation produced by the success of globalism by saying this:

The oligarchs are as deep in this crisis as we are. But they are organized, they have traced their course and goals, they have a VISION. What does the left have?

The left has nothing to offer to the middle class. Well, maybe the Green Party does. Go cast your vote for whoever…

At the end of this elections cycle, we will end up exactly where we started: in the hands of the oligarchs.

That’s the sad truth, that’s exactly where we will all be when we wake up the morning of November 9, no matter who wins: Sanders, Hillary, Trump…

The elite is ready to rumble, but are we?

There are no options, none for the progressive middle class except the democratic party. The Green Party is not ready for its close-up. We have to vote for the democratic candidate. But if Sanders’ misguided and rabid Hillary-haters  followers have their way, the republicans will make the decision for us. Sanders and his followers have tarnished Hillary Clinton because she  lacks Sanders’ purity and perfection (the Vatican approved of his purity  and, in doing so, tried to mark Hillary as the ‘she-devil’), so there’s a risk she may not win the presidency.

They have made her the sole culprit for the debacle caused by globalism, they focus on her alone. Trump’s new moniker for her comes courtesy of Sanders and his followers who have joined the MSM in successfully portraying her as a subhuman entity devoid of morals. Those votes she lost to Sanders as the campaign progressed were lost because people started to believe Sanders’ and his followers’ message that she is immoral.

The leftist movement bears some of the guilt for that situation.

The left’s own monumental failure at reaching the middle  class is appalling because of the fact that, let alone the working class, humanity itself is about to collapse under the weight of the oppression by a handful of oligarchs, which makes them open to  the right message. But the left can’t communicate with the downtrodden they claim to be fighting for, and they seem to have forgotten how to organize the working class. Even Trump, a clownish wealthy entertainer, have easily found the words to explain his version of the evils of  globalism to a big segment of blue-collar America.

Instead, the left finds itself  joining the mass of people  deluded by the MSM’s bumper-sticker messages of ‘hope and change and ‘socialist-revolution’ marching towards the duopoly.

The left has fallen for the ‘Bernie revolution’ because they have not vetted him, just as they didn’t vet Obama. A revolution named after and based on worshiping a politician who has been part of the establishment for 30+ years should have been the first clue to the leftists that something was not kosher with that revolution. The fact that the MSM has refused to vet a ‘socialist’ should have also piqued their curiosity about him and his ‘revolution’.

The progressives have wasted their youth’s energy and money on helping Sanders corral them and march them in to the democratic party, the duopoly.  The left criticizes the ‘establishment’ but marches towards it in every election instead.

I imagine the ‘progressive’ Hillary-haters will spend the next four years, if she wins, battling against her instead of organizing the people so that in the next elections they have an alternative other than the duopoly.

So, if not Hillary and certainly not Sanders, then who, people? Trump? Are you serious? Is that all you’ve got to offer to the disappearing middle class?

A Wasted Revolution

The Situation

Why is the GOP afraid of attacking the Donald upfront? They are not afraid of that tongue of his; they are afraid of his followers. Why is the democratic party afraid of telling saint Bernie Sanders to go away already? Because they are afraid of his followers.

That’s the closer we can come to a real revolution: both parties are terrified of the angry voters, terrified that the voters will swamp their respective conventions and walk out with each party’s owners head in  a pitch fork. Wall Street, and Loyd Blankfein in particular, is keeping it quiet, but they too are nervous, not of Sanders, silly. Of the angry youngsters who want his head in a pitchfork. Sanders has never been a threat to the oligarchs or WS: he is their friend, he bailed them out.

Since 9/11, when the oligarchs ditched any pretense of not being the power behind our government, the people’s anger have been boiling. Bush Jr. showed publicly who his ‘base’ was: the ‘big donors’. The duopoly then channeled that voters’ anger on to the 2008 elections through a charismatic leader, Obama, who brought them, progressives and  republicans included, to the democratic party, and neuter them there. The financial sector openly backed him up and then were there with Obama  in the White House, in the open running the USA Inc. Under Obama’s seven years rule we saw the anti-war movement shrink like a raisin, the same with the OWS movement. The BLM movement is still struggling to survive.

2009 Infamous Obama meeting at the White House with Financial elite. They went to tell him   to tone down his attacks on them…and he dutifully complied.

Fast forward to 2016 elections. The nation’s middle class, running on fumes,  is seriously p.o.’d, the distress is general. So, the duopoly goes to work again and offers two ‘charismatic’ leaders to channel the anger, again, and render it non-threatening. But this time there is no Obama to unite republicans, democrats, independents and dreamy leftists in one party and neuter them there. Thus, the anger resurfaces and  challenges the ‘establishment’, but it is circumscribed to inside the two parties.

The I Hate Hillary Episode Where All The Anger Is Deposited On Her

Hillary Clinton (HC) has to be  sacrificed, again, fed to the angry mob to keep them away from the masters. She is, again, demonized as the sole cause of all the problems of the nation and the world; the problem is not the oligarchs who buy and put barriers on our path. The problem is she, their whore, let’s go get HER, forget about Blankfein and WS and Sillicon Valley’s Tech Giants…it’s she we need to destroy.  If there is a new scandal of any sorts, you bet she is behind it, and we can’t let a woman like that run our nation…The anger is being safely deposited on her.

But the oligarchs’ two alternatives, the two ‘charismatic’ men – Trump and Sanders, are so dysfunctional and ineffective that all that attack on Hillary only serves to make her the only sane alternative to the voters of both parties. She will win against the best wishes of the oligarchs. They gave Sanders a yuuge chance, they gave him, as they are doing with Trump, free press and non vetting his record. But the man is soo insufferable and incompetent that he can’t win. Every time he went on an interview, he screwed up. The NY Daily News interview…it was an opportunity to put Hillary away. But noooo! He squandered the opportunity.

Guess which one screwed up the most?

Speaking of Trump, whom the GOP thought they could let him run in their party to entertain and distract their voters, like Sanders, he ran away with the angry voters, and with them next to him, put himself in the position of power  to challenge the party into supporting him, threatening to unleash that mass of angry voters. The people are being manipulated, once again. Trump spoke the words that the elite hates and never expected him to mention: insularism, nationalism and anti-globalism, and now they want him out.

The elite and the oligarchs are as confused as the left is. They will have to decide fast: Trump or Hillary. I discussed the reasons why they hate Hillary. So, who will it be? I think they fear the feminist, powerful woman the most.

So, Sanders and Trump have taken that anger and used it for their personal benefits. Nothing positive is going to come from those two men’s  breve 15 minutes in the spotlight, nothing positive for the working, middle and poor classes. There will be no discussion about what happened in these primaries, what mistakes were made, simply because there was no organization behind the ‘movement’; it was all Bernie’s movement. There was no party behind him, no coordinating groups –only the campaign managers who made a pretty penny on account of the naive youngsters who gave their little $27.

Wasted Revolution

The energy of a huge mass of angry and discontented middle class, republican and democrats and independents and leftists…is being wasted on attacking one woman. It’s like Jeffrey St. Clair said at Counter punch:

What might a real movement have done? If Sanders could turn 30,000 people out for a pep rally in Washington Square Park, why couldn’t he have had a flash mob demonstration mustering half that many fervent supporters to shut down Goldman Sachs for a day? If he could lure 20,000 Hipsters to the Rose Garden in Portland, why couldn’t he turn out 10,000 Sandernistas to bolster the picket lines of striking Verizon workers? If Sanders could draw 15,000 people in Austin, Texas, why couldn’t his movement bring 5,000 people to Huntsville to protest executions at the Texas death house? If Sanders could draw 18,000 people to a rally in Las Vegas, why couldn’t he just as easily have lead them in a protest at nearby Creech Air Force Base, the center of operations for US predator drones? Strike that. Sanders supports Obama’s killer drone program.

All that energy was for naught. No need to talk about Trump’s campaign, there can be not one leftists out there who thinks that Trump’s ‘movement’ ever had the promise of growing into something important for the GOP’s voters that could be taken as an alternative to Hillary.

Sanders’ followers will continue obsessed with Hillary, they will follow her through her campaign for the presidency against Trump like a rabid dog accusing her of all types of unnatural acts against humanity, and bonding with him when he calls her names. Sanders followers always go into a state of ecstasy when Sanders of Trump call her names. They will waste their energy in trying to derail her campaign thinking that if she fails to win against Trump, by some miracle the nation will move forward, there will be no more wars…because she is the ‘corrupter’.

Even worse, they are getting ready to spend their energy, should Hillary wins the presidency, on attacking her every step of the way. Wasted energy and a wasted ‘revolution’. Instead of recouping to form a viable third-party, organize the unions,  unite wtih those working to form an international workers organization to fight the globalists, they will continue to burn themselves out trashing one woman.

Obama’s term is coming to an end, and the left is disorganized and confused and unfocused. The transition from Obama to, hopefully Hillary and not Trump, will be depressing: coming out from two defeats is not  easy.

I don’t see any path to recoup that energy wasted on Sanders. It’s like I said when Obama ran in the 2008 primaries: the left falling for the ‘hope and change’ slogan of a charismatic establishment leader will only soil the image of the progressive movement. I said the same about Sanders, that supporting his vacuous ‘socialist revolution’ will only throw the real revolution backwards another 10 years, at least. It’s going to be harder to trust or believe any one who come out again selling utopias and easy-made disposable ‘revolutions’.

I guess we’ll continue fighting to reform the duopoly, which is like trying to reform somebody’s leg, other than yours,  against his or her will.

The Day After Hillary Wins-The MSM Kills Her, and Trump Appeals to Berniebots

I watched David Axelrod, Obama’s former campaign ad guru, at CNN doing a ‘Killing me softly” version on Hillary Clinton (HC) last night, the NY primaries day. It looked ominous because he proved in the 2008 primaries that he is an expert at killing Hillary.

He kept saying that HC, in order to not provoke Sanders’s followers, whom she may need if she wins the nomination, should not respond to his attacks against her and should not get angry. He dismissed Sanders’ dirty tactics of character assassination and lies against her. The implication was that she should be a good-girl and ignore the bully.

But that’s how he, Axelrod, ran his Obama campaign against her: he made her look ‘bitchy’ whenever she responded to Obama’s character assassination tactics. It’s no secret that Obama  and Axelrod, together, and Hillary are not in ‘good terms’ with each other.

That’s how Hillary is going to lose the elections: the MSM, Obama’s representative (Axelrod) there and the GOP will shred her to smithereens with misogyny, character assassination and outright lies. Today, less than 16hrs since her NY victory, the WaPo has this headline: The Take: Clinton got what she needed, but her image is underwater. The NY Times asks Sanders to stay in the race but makes no reference to his negative campaign threatening to handle the presidency to Trump.

The MSM is part and parcel of the presidential election process. They have more power to shape opinions than the politicians themselves. If the MSM is against you, you have an uphill battle to fight.

The only good news is that Gloria Borger, CNN’s Chief Political Analyst, who have been constantly bashing HC, showed a sign that women are finally noticing the misogynistic hack job that is been done on her. Gloria actually, somehow meekly, managed to respond to Axelrod’s comment observing that, as they were discussing (that democrats should start attacking Trump)

whenever Hillary tries to focus on Trump, Bernie gets under her skin an starts accusing her and bringing the emails, and she then has to pivot back to Bernie to respond to the accusations”.

Axelrod went actually mute: he couldn’t respond. The MSM is not 100% efficient, as shown by Trump’s and Hillary’s continued staying power despite the personal attacks. But the fact that  Sanders won Upstate New York prove that they have a powerful effect. The MSM has never criticized Sanders nor vetted his record; they attack Hillary if she responds to his smearing campaign. That’s how he won Upstate New York.

You can check my research on WaPo’s negative articles on HC and the positive for Sanders here.

Axelrod and Gloria Borger talking to each other. Old snapshot, clearly.

Trump Appeals to Berniebots

Trump, on the other side of the aisle, last night displayed his new tactic for recruiting ‘democratic’ voters: appealing to berniebots. He, ever so innocently, said:

I don’t like that Bernie guy, but what is  going there with the super delegates is worse, worse here.

The man is not the moron we all thought he is. He is effective in his conning. The purpose of that statement he made was to lure the berniebots whom he knows are expressing the idea of supporting him and not Hillary. All he has to do is sweeten his bait and they will flock to him. The honey in this case is ‘victimhood‘: he, just like Sanders, is a victim of the ‘establishment’. He wants to  commensurate with Sanders’ followers. ‘I have more in common with you than you with Hillary’, that is his message to them.

And bite they will.

Bernie Sanders And The Left’s Inability to Learn From Recent History (End)(Revised)

It’s time to tackle Sanders and Hillary.

Sanders Campaign is Not A Movement (This heading was recently added.)

Sanders sat with his wife sometime last year and discussed with her, and maybe with some friends, whether to run for president or not. He filed the required federal forms and off he went. Did he meet with the progressives and devised a campaign with goals set and determined by all? Is he responsible  or accountable to those progressives supporting him and giving their money to him  in any form? Is his campaign open for his berniebots to give him input on what issues to include in his platform? No, no, and no.

Sanders  is running is a very successful campaign that surprised even himself in it success. The millions of dollars he is raising from his poor followers, at the end of the campaign that money goes to…him. He doesn’t return that money to them. At the end of the campaign he just packs his bags and flies back to Vermont. What happens now to all that anger and ‘hope’ his followers berned for him provoking Trump’s followers at those rallies, even getting physically hurt?

Was Obama a movement? What happened to it after he won?

But the illusion of a ‘revolution’ is a pretty one. So let the frustrated and inept leftists and communists join with saint Sanders. Is like I said in that post linked there (um, sorry for quoting myself):

Unappealing Socialists

Let’s start with a socialist truism: there is no revolution without the masses. Today, a  70+ years old politician with 30+ years of experience participating in the capitalist’s electoral process, with no (official) affiliation to any of the US political parties or organizations, a self-proclaimed independent socialist whose major success has been convincing, for the last 30 years, a sector of his state’s progressives and working class to elect him as their representative in the oligarchs’ house of political power…that politician is commanding a whopping 6,045,960  followers, mostly youngsters (as of 4/6/16) who want to elect him president of the USA.

Our socialists look at that picture and, because they are human beings, can feel nothing but envy…because they haven’t been able to appeal to their own family in that way for the last 30 years.

Yes, the left have been buying this delusion since Obama. That’s why they hate Hillary Clinton: it’s not because she is the evil witch corrupting Wall Street.  It is because she does not offer or promise dreams to the sleeping left.

Sanders the Saint

Like Obama before him, Sanders is presenting himself as a unique, mystic-like personality. He is not your run-of-mill politician, according to his worshiping followers, despite the fact that he has been in politics for the last 30 years of his life.  No, he is a step away from sainthood, thus his supposedly impetuous trip to the Vatican to crawl over the marbled floors there begging for a photo-op with the Pope.

You can refer to the first part of this post to read about his sainthood. Same conclusion: if the left is, again, buying this distorted picture of this politician…I can’t even muster the words to complete that sentence. But buying it they are.

So, we could say that since Obama, the oligarchs have fineness the art of giving the oppressed workers for their elections caricatures, video game characters to make them believe that the establishment is providing real options: hey, Obama, Trump, Sanders…there are your red leaders!

On close examination, they are worse than the old type of politicians.

Sanders’ record in Congress and as a mayor in Burlington has not been touched by the MSM; berniebots would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. But the record is there.

Sanders the Orwellian

Sanders has a unique gift, as compared to Obama. He is not poetic, but he is crafty at justifying voting against the working class and making it look as something good and necessary…or claiming victim-hood.

The Minutemen Militia ‘incident’

We have him on record as a supporter of a racist group. We don’t have Hillary on record as supporting them or the KKK, though. He did vote to give them power, and then claimed he thought he was voting for some amendment codifying Congress laws, that the Minutemen amendment was ‘slipped’ through into the bill by republicans.

militia

This is 20015. They were overjoyed by his announcement of running for POTUS.

Then, when confronted with his record of voting in favor of  bailing out the Auto industry, he gave the explanation he has consistently given when confronted with his support of the oligarchs: it was for the good of the working class:

Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the $700 billion bail out of the financial services industry but he says this package is different: (Sanders) “The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.”

Of course, the auto industry ended up firing thousands of workers and pocketed the bailout money, something NO ONE could have expected, could they?

He had the same explanation for voting against the Immigration Reform bill: it was not good enough, so let’s leave things the way they are. He never offered alternatives.

When confronted about his vote protecting the Minutemen militia, he claimed victim hood.

He has said that all his life he has stood with the working class and that big donors corrupt politicians:

  • He voted for the financial and insurance corporations’ bail out.
  • Anti-union company American Crystal Sugar was his top donor in 2012. The company engages in union-busting workers lockout.
  • More Super Pac money was spent supporting him in Iowa than HC and O’Malley together.
  • He voted against the invasion of Iraq but then gave Bush all the money and funds needed to do the job. He has funded EVERY war we have engaged since then.
  • Voted Yes for the invasion of Yugoslavia (1998) and the massacre of over 200k innocent Serbian men, women and children who did not participate in any previous “atrocities” used as excuse to kill them. Then arrested anti-war progressives who occupied his office for supporting Bill Clinton’s war.
  • In 1994 he voted yes for the federal 3-strikes law for mandatory life sentence.
  • He is against Israel’s use of “excessive force” in Gaza: that’s not a pro-Palestinian stand. He agreed with the attack, it should just have been ‘more measured’.
  • He doesn’t believe Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.

The list goes on-and-on.

  • He voted to fund the military industry, had progressives arrested, when he was mayor, for protesting in front of Lockheed the millions of dollars given to them to build armaments with which to kill other poor and working class people around the globe.

He is a hawk, just as he denounces HC is.

  • He is pro-drones,
  • He is pro-torture.
  • He is pro-keeping Gitmo open.

The Hamilton Project, Again

I covered that too. He spoke to The Brooking Institution, the parent organization of THP.

Look, the man is far far away from being a saint. He is just another tool of the oligarchs. He is the bait to drag the working class into the two-party system, together with Trump.

You can’t cry ‘traitor’ later when his true class positions were announced in his record, and when you should know by now that politicians pay to experts in psychological brainwashing for opinion-shaping.

As with Obama, Sanders has not been vetted. His record has been left untouched and defended with claims of sanctity: he never lies.

There is a lot of material in this blog for you to check him out. You can accept it, question it, corroborate it…but you should not sit there accepting this picture of him as a unique, moral politician. The man is a proven racist and a liar.

But the left is willfully blind to this. They just want to hear the words ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’ to relief that tension. Now they are daydreaming.

Hillary Clinton

Who is claiming that she is a saint? Who?!

This woman is the most vetted politician on this planet. The things you don’t know about her politics… you can imagine them.

To me, Bush, Obama, Sanders, Hillary…they are all equally guilty of betraying the working class and all of them have third-world people’s blood in their hands.

But every four years we are dragged into this delusion that voting matters. It would matter if we had a working class third-party not controlled by the oligarchs. But we don’t have that, do we? We have no other alternative, none at all, than to vote for the ‘least of two evils’, or for the Green Party or any of the other ones outside the duopoly.

The problem is that none of those are ready for their close up. Instead of joining the dem party, Sanders should have run independent and/or build that third-party. But he is there for himself. Until then…

So, why HC? You might as well ask: Why is the MSM and the establishment bashing her, again? Yes, she gets money, but so does Sanders (under the table). Why is she been portrait as the evil witch, as if we were able to get rid of her the world will become an Eden, WS would grow a heart only if we could kill her?

Her nomination is not guaranteed yet; the oligarchs want the ‘populist’ for the reasons discussed before: channel the anger into the duopoly. Hillary is not doing that, she is offering ameliorating the problems. She has a plan, not perfect, but Sanders offers only slogans. The oligarchs prefer that to a woman who may actually put the reigns on them.

So why her? Because we know her. You can vote for her and have at hand how you are going to go to the streets and fight her. You couldn’t do that with Obama bc you wouldn’t hurt the man you were in love with. And, if you vote for Sanders, you wouldn’t protest his policies for the same reasons. Obama destroyed the anti-war movement and no one heard a cry from below. He bashed the OWS movement and no one came to their rescue. Hillary, she can expect we will be all over her if she doesn’t deliver because nobody sees her as a saint.

But I believe that, given all we know about HC, we also know that she has taken a stand for women and Blacks and Palestinians, more palpable than your typical male politicians and presidents. Yes, for Palestinians, when she was a FLOTUS, and for that she was vilified.

Hillary is not lying to you, she is basically telling you ‘this is who I am, but I can be persuaded’. You will not be disappointed by her because you are going aware of what to expect from her. The opposite can be said of voting for Sanders: you will be disappointed because you don’t know his true identity.

I believe she can be persuaded. I believe she will protect women’s rights from republicans and democrats destroying them.

Finally, for 200 years we have elected men, totally imperfect men. Why do we demand from a woman that she be perfect? By that standard, we will never have a woman president. Obama became evidence that we can now vote independently of skin color.

We need to do the same about gender.

Until that third-party materializes, I’m voting for Hillary today.

 

 

Hillary-Hating and Mental Splitting: The Psy OP of Fascists

The now popular noun/adjective ‘berniebots’ represents a collective observation that  Sanders’ followers attitudes towards their ‘leader’ and to Hillary Clinton (HC) show that something is lacking in them, i.e., a mind, that they behave like robots.

I will take a different view on that collective observation  and propose something more controversial: that what ‘berniebots’ are displaying is disturbing and dangerous signs of mental “splitting“, a mark of successful brainwashing technique.

In this post I intend to bring evidence to the fact that there is an anti-Hillary campaign based on that  ‘splitting’ technique, that Sanders’ followers are being used to deliver the ‘all bad-all good’ narrative of that technique, and that it threatens to lead our nation into a new form of fascism.

Splitting is more than just the relational-problem described in the psychiatric diagnosis of Borderline Personality.

In psychology, splitting is a mental schema characterized  by an absolute polarizing view of other people as either all good or all bad, the ‘black and white’ attitude, no shades are possible. Splitting is a  commonly used technique in cults and in advertising; it is a tool for opinion-shaping and political character assassination. It is psychological brain washing because it is done, obviously, surreptitiously.  It involves repetitive exposure to dogma and propaganda.

UPDATE: The discussion at the WaPo about ‘smear’ is not the same as ‘splitting’.  Smear is easily handled by showing evidence to the contrary. Splitting, on the other hand invalidates the target as a person because she is branded as all bad while the other is all good. Think religious fanatics, it’s like that.

In the case of ‘berniebots’, I propose that they have been exposed to the constant online and MSM repetition of an all bad Hillary Clinton propaganda. Karl Rove is the originator of this Hillary-hating art (discussed later)  and his skills have been adopted by both Trump and Sanders’ campaigns.

Splitting Hillary and Sanders

First, let’s consider how ‘berniebots’ display this splitting behavior.

It is common knowledge by now that, for them, Sanders is the pure, perfect, all good, almost saintly political leader. He is the only politician who never lies, always tells the truth; who, in his 30+ years in politics, has done nothing but good for the downtrodden. To them, there is no record of him voting in Congress  against the working class.  Susan Sarandon went as far as saying that “he has no ego”. That is distortion of thinking: they see what they want to see in him, not what he really is.

But he promotes that distortion:

the truth

No one but him is telling the truth. The other people are liars, all of them, according to his and his followers judgment.

His trip to the Vatican this week have cemented that illusory view they have of him.

Sadly, we have also seen berniebots verbally attacking anyone who disagrees with them on their perception of Sanders or who brings evidence of his work in Congress that shows a not-so-perfect Congressional record.

As for Hillary Clinton, they see her as all bad, a witch, a subhuman entity, literally; their shared hatred of her is intense, powerful and all-encompassing.

A cursory research online about HC in this year’s primaries will net you mostly negative articles and opinions. When you go to Reddit and to MSM comment sections, you find that any positive comment about her or about anything good she has done as a politician is immediately and  violently attacked by them, devalued or negated as “lies”.  Even worse, as I have commented in my blog, YouTube and the internet are plagued with offensive videos portraying HC as, literally, a beast.

hil2

hil

Notice this one is from the 2008 primaries. It will be discussed later.

 Personality Worshiping And The Electoral Process

With berniebots there is no possibility of having a calm discussion of pros-and-cons about our two democratic contenders for the presidency. This means that in our current national elections there is no meaningful discussion about Sanders and Hillary’s qualifications. The public is being forced into engaging in the  politics of personality-worshiping to prevent meaningful vetting of the candidates.

Personal attacks are inevitable in a political campaigns; it is  ‘normal’ for candidates to engage in it. Also, the lack of consensus on  what constituted personal attack vs  discussing political records aggravates the problem.

But what we are witnessing today in general is not ‘normal’, unless you consider brainwashing normal and written into our presidential election process.

I don’t blame the bots for this; somebody is manipulating and taking advantage of their emotions. But who?

The Art of  Bashing Hillary Clinton Exist: The Evidence is Here

It is a fact that the GOP and its master of opinion-shaping propaganda (brainwashing), Karl Rove, have  spent almost a billion dollars, since the 2008 primaries in the art of vilifying Hillary Clinton, associating her name and image with powerful hateful emotions in the eyes of the electorate. He had become the king of brainwashing since the days of Bush Jr, helping not only elect him, but helping, and this it true, making the public adopt the term ‘climate change’ and ditch ‘global warming’. That’s for a later topic.

In this ad, a narrator ominously warns that scandal follows Mrs. Clinton like a shadow.

In 2008, Rove and his party were certain that Hillary was going to be the dems’ candidate for the presidency. Their job, unbeknownst to them, helped Obama steal her thunder. The amount of hatred and misogyny against her at that time was truly appalling. Everybody joined in the bandwagon of Hillary-bashing, including Obama.

Rove never made it a secret that he was  honeying the art of political character assassination against HC. His ego is so yuuge and he was so proud of his handy work that he even invited the media to witness a master brain-washer at work. He showed us how he trains people to split-thinking.

So, there’s no excuse to be ignorant about his work and about political brainwashing. There is  no reason not to believe that Hillary bashing is happening and is purposely done to brainwash the public into voting against her.

Fascism is Being Tested In The USA With Sanders and His Berniebots

You will recognize those tactics today. Rove is still at work and still convinced that Hillary will be the contender for the dems. But today, Sanders has brought Rove’s tested brainwashing techniques to, let alone to the voters, but  directly to his followers.

It is the berniebots who are enacting the splitting technique; not only they believe their split-thinking, they are the army sent out to the online media to bash and shame Hillary, to deny her record of accomplishments and of efforts to help the regular people of this nation. The berniebots test our mental patience with constant she is all bad-he is all good  brainwashing efforts.

If they were doing it to vet her and accept vetting Sanders equally, I wouldn’t have any problem with attacking her record. But that’s not what is going on here. This is not unlike in that movie “1984”.

“HATE HER! SHOUT OUT HER NAME!”

I made this video to give a visual idea of the cultish character of splitting. It contains clips of Sanders followers shouting at her.

 In that movie, “1984”, Winston’s,  the main character, daily work consisted in manipulating the nation’s only newspaper, changing historical data and turning heroes into villains and villains into heroes; and the workers were given a daily doses of hate to relieve them from the anger and frustration of living in a totalitarian state. The image of the hateful Goldstein would elicit spasms of intense anger and hatred, only to be relieved with ecstasy at the sight of the protector of all, the Big Brother.

Truly, our berniebots are the manipulated victims of the establishment a la “1984”. They get ‘unhinged’ at the sight of HC and in ecstasy at Sanders. They are willing to vote for Trump and not for her; that intense is their hatred, willing to burn the USA, as some of them have  commented, if Hillary wins the nomination or the presidency.

What you are seeing today in our primaries, which is more extreme than what we saw in 2008, is NOT going to go away. This picture of anarchic angry youngsters sent to disrupt other candidates rallies and activities, because it received the blessings of the MSM, it will stay with us as part of our political process, it will become the normal.

Once you have honed you brainwashing skills to that level, you are deserving of the Joseph Gobblers Medal  of Honor.

gob

Finally, what to do?

As I have been saying all along in this blog, until the middle class and the poor build that third-party not controlled by the elite, we only have the duopoly. Having to choose from the least of two evils, it doesn’t help us to be given charismatic ‘leaders’ who hide their true intentions. That would be Sanders.

As for Hillary, her life is an (forced) open book; there can be no surprises. She is not a ‘revolutionary’ nor is promising socialism. I know that she is not perfect because I  know her story.

She is not all bad nor all good. But she is better, at any levels, than a manipulative saint.

Go build that third-party to see if you can wake up. Get out from the duopoly, they are there to drain your ‘revolutionary’ energy in useless bickering about who represents the ‘establishment’: they ALL do.

The Great American Brainwash: Half a Billion Dollars to Turn the Public against Hillary

I opened my earlier post, Sanders and The Two-Party System: Moving The US Towards Fascism, discussing the vile YouTube videos portraying HC as, literally, a subhuman creature.

First, consider these YouTube videos titles:

Hillary and the True Beast She Is.
Clinton Insider Reveals Hillary’s Lesbian Sexcapades
Hillary Clinton – A TRUE STORY OF SEX, DRUGS & MURDER
Carly Fiorina Knows All About Hillary’s Sex Life
Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal
hillary clinton and huma

I would like to expand a bit on that concerted effort to vilify her.

According to Sanders, his followers and the whole leftist-spectrum, Hillary Clinton (HC) is the sole powerful she-devil cause of all the ills of capitalism. If we could just ‘kill’ her (at this point they imply not only figuratively speaking, that intense is the hatred) then we could get rid of the minuscule corrupt Wall Street CEOs causing the problems: that 0.1%. Hillary is the snake in Eden tempting and corrupting everybody; that’s their image of Hillary Clinton.

The title of this post is actually an article from #HillaryMen, which I highly recommend. I link to that  article because it helps make better sense of the picture I described in my post.

Even more detailed is the NY Times article The Best Way to Vilify Hillary Clinton? G.O.P. Spends Heavily to Test It
By ASHLEY PARKER and AMY CHOZICKJULY 11, 2015

on which the HillaryMen’s article was based. Again, I recommend it and, please, do click on the examples the Times article gives of  how Rove’s group compose the anti-Hillary ads.

When I wrote my earlier post I was unaware that the attacks on her have been carefully planned since 2008 by Karl Rove et al GOP operatives, and that they have invested that huge amount of money in psychological tests to brainwash the American public against her.

In other words, after reading those articles, one can safely  infer that many of the tons of  YouTube videos that I described before are actually products paid undercover by Rove, which he uses to ‘test’  the efficiency of the ‘product’ (the visual and the script attacking Hillary) on the public.

hil

This one from her 2008 run, clearly an early Rove product. Note the amount of hits.

hil2

In our new information era the modern data analysts consider ‘measurable behavior’ the mere act of clicking on a link; and the thousands (in some videos millions) of hits provide a trove of information to these experts on brainwashing. They also get better feedback by the type of comments posted on each video.

This is an excerpt from the Times’ article:

ORLANDO, Fla. — Inside an office park here, about a dozen women gathered to watch a 30-second television spot that opened with Hillary Rodham Clinton looking well-coiffed and aristocratic, toasting champagne with her tuxedoed husband, the former president, against a golden-hued backdrop.

The ad then cut to Mrs. Clinton describing being “dead broke” when she and her husband left the White House, before a narrator intoned that Mrs. Clinton makes more money in a single speech, about $300,000, than an average family earns in five years.

The message hit a nerve. “She’s out of touch,” said one of the women, who works as a laundry attendant.

“Her reality is just so different than mine,” murmured another, as operatives from American Crossroads, a Republican “super PAC,” watched closely from behind a one-way mirror.

In rooms like this one around the country, an expensive and sophisticated effort is underway to test and refine the most potent lines of attack against Mrs. Clinton, and, ultimately, to persuade Americans that she does not deserve their votes. While the general election is 16 months away, Republican groups are eager to begin building a powerful case against the woman they believe will be the Democratic nominee, and to infuse the public consciousness with those messages.

This is an excerpt from the #HillaryMen’s article:

We are not surprised by this desperate Republican attempt to manipulate public opinion. As Hillary gets closer to the White House, the forces that have worked for three decades to bring her down are becoming increasingly frantic. These forces include conservative attack groups, Republican operatives and their media allies such as the Morning Joe crew and Maureen Dowd, who labor to indoctrinate the public with shop-worn negative frames:

• CALCULATING (Scheming, crafty, manipulative)
• SECRETIVE (Suspicious, paranoid, uncommunicative)
• POLARIZING (Divisive, alienating)
• UNTRUSTWORTHY (Corrupt, deceitful, dishonest, unethical)
• OVER-AMBITIOUS (Will do or say anything to win)
• INAUTHENTIC (Disingenuous, fake, unlikable, insincere)
• INHUMAN (Machine-like, robotic, abnormal, cold)
• OVER-CONFIDENT (Inevitable, defiant, imperious, regal)
• OLD (Out of touch, represents the past)

These articles are worth the time reading them.

Sanders and The Two-Party System: Moving The US Towards Fascism

In this post I discuss:

  • How Sanders and the  two-party system have destroyed the progressive movement
  • How his betrayal is pushing his followers  from the extreme left to the extreme right of the political spectrum as they see Trump as an alternative to vilified Hillary Clinton (HC) and, finally,
  • That his followers’ movement towards Trump presages our nation moving towards fascism.
  • I also discuss why HC is the proverbial sacrificial lamb in this process of destroying the progressive  movement.

First, consider these YouTube videos titles:

  • Hillary and the True Beast She Is.
  • Clinton Insider Reveals Hillary’s Lesbian Sexcapades
  • Hillary Clinton – A TRUE STORY OF SEX, DRUGS & MURDER
  • Carly Fiorina Knows All About Hillary’s Sex Life
  • Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal
  • hillary clinton and huma

There are millions of videos like these, and worse, there.

I checked videos for Dick Cheney: they were all about him being a war criminal and making a profit out of the Iraq invasion. For President George W. Bush, the videos were even cute: there were “GWBush bloopers” and other ‘funny’ takes on “Bushisms”. In other words, their moral character and their manhood, their masculine sexual qualities are not questioned…ever. They are human beings…who do bad things.

But those videos ‘inform’ us that Hillary Clinton is not human, there is no possible redemption for her as a human being because she is an unnatural beast.

You would think that republicans made those videos.  I have bad news for you: most of the videos were made by ‘democrats’ and ‘progressives’, i.e., by Sanders followers.

Hillary Clinton is not the caricature portrayed in those videos, and she is definitely not worse than the other two guys, not even if compared base on their politics, nor even as a human being. So what gives?

The Times They Are A-Changin’

If voting were to change anything, it would be illegal.

Yes, they are changing, but is not the ‘change’ you voted for when you voted for Obama.

In the  2008 elections the oligarchs learned that the voter anger that came as a consequence of the post-9/11  economical and political changes could be contained and diffused in the electoral process with the help of charismatic leaders promising to change and ‘clean’ the system.

Today they are offering you more  ‘charismatic’ and popular leaders: Sanders and Trump. Is no coincidence that they both are talking the same language of “corrupt establishment”.

Keep in mind that in 2008 HC, despite having been the preferred nominee in the beginning, became the target of a brutal misogynistic campaign attack from the democratic party and the MSM that portrayed her as the evil witch of the status quo. She was unpolitely asked to cede her candidacy to the charismatic candidate paving the path to bring the angry voters into a liberating communion of hope and change. The same thing is happening to her today.

Voter anger

Today voters have more than good reasons to be angry, on both sides of the aisle. There’s no need to go into the causes of that anger here. The question here is What do they do with that anger?

Sanders,  the two-party system (2ps) and the art of killing a populist movement

The modern purpose and function of the 2ps is to channel and dissipate voters anger in its electoral process, that’s why the ‘establishment’ protects it with tooth and nail.

Nothing threatens the status quo of the US oligarchs more than the prospect of having a viable third-party, not even ‘evil’ Hillary. That’s why the GOP forced the Donald into signing that pledge, remember? And that’s one of the reasons why B. Sanders has remained an “independent” in Congress: to divide and conquer; keep the power concentrated in the hands of the oligarchs.

For all his chest-beating shouts about “revolution”, “socialism” and being against “the billionaire class”, Sanders has never ventured outside of Congress to form a party to challenge the ‘establishment’. He is part and parcel of that establishment and has  promised many times publicly to protect the democratic party. He doesn’t even have a record of supporting other independents running for elected positions. On the contrary.

Sanders, the  great anti-establishment independent, was adamant in protecting the party from another independent by giving his unconditional support to Kerry over Nader in the 2004 presidential elections. In doing so, Sanders can receive credit for  these dubious achievements:

  • He helped in killing the momentum to create a viable third-party.
  • He blamed, not only Nader, but the third-party option for Bush winning over Kerry.
  • The psychological impact of blaming Nader for Americans having to endure the atrocious second Bush administration has cemented the voters into the 2ps. The third-party is now further away than it was in 2004.

Independently of  how democrats feel about Nader, in the eyes of the leftists and progressives Sanders betrayed the progressive movement by siding with the democratic party.

Sanders’ job in Congress all these years  has been  to give voters the illusion  that there is third option in the electoral process in his state of Vermont against the establishment, and that he represents that option. He has done his job superbly well considering his record of voting against the interests of his supporters.

Now he is doing it again now.

And that takes us to today’s primaries.

The Primaries: The Escape Valve

Sanders is running in the “corrupt party”…because the party needs him to run in it, and he does as they tell him to do.

The  DNC asked him to run  as a democrat to give the appearance that  the 2ps, and the democratic party in particular, offers real alternatives to the voters, not only the usual pro-establishment candidates. Appearances are important in a ‘democracy’. They roll the dice and if Sanders can repeat Obama’s feast, offering the pie in the sky to pacify the raucous voters, the party will again sacrifice Hillary in the altar of misogyny. Also, the anger resulting from ‘no change‘ and from the continued attacks on the middle class and the police-state is getting out of hand and has morphed into  the Occupy and BLM movements. It needs to be diffused: ‘out of the streets and into the party’ (paraphrasing “out of the closet and into street”).

So, once again the owners of the DNC recruit Sanders to impersonate ‘change’.

Sanders’ aura as an “independent” and of being in touch with the grassroots movement is a coup. He is The Pied Piper of Vermont  bringing  those pesky disorganized and drifting angry youngsters who have been challenging the status quo into the abyss of the primaries to burn and dissipate their energy (feeling the bern?) in the electoral process. That’s one of the reasons the MSM has given free press to Sanders and Trump, to stir the belligerent youngsters in the party, burn them there and render them inoffensive and malleable.

With no third-party option because Sanders helped destroy it, our  angry youngsters have no other option but to enter the 2ps…to see their anger manipulated and misdirected.

Trump is channeling the conservative angry voters and Sanders the “progressives”. They are the escape valve to dissipate all that righteous anger. Hillary and the other candidates represent the status quo, but Hillary in particular has been made the target of the youthful anger. The oligarchs, they own the 2ps, they win no matter who wins the primaries and the elections: each and every candidate in these elections is part of the ‘establishment’ and is there to protect it. But more important, they are there to protect the oligarchs themselves. That’s why Sanders vilifies Hillary, and seldom focus his ‘ire’ on the WS CEOs personally.

The only real alternative for the working class, the middle and poor classes, is to have a third-party not controlled  by the owners of the two parties. Until that ideal condition materializes, we are stuck in the duopoly; forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

And now we enter into the danger posed by Sanders and his followers.

The Angry Bots Are On The Loose

Given that Sanders have lured the angry young voters into the electoral process with his magical ‘revolution’, they have to be given a reason to stay there. They are being made to believe that the party needs their youthful anger to change the party, and that their only obstacle is HC. That’s why Sanders continues to bash her with impunity. Every time he does it, his followers experience a bout of  ecstasy.

But it is becoming clear to them that, once again, the democratic party is not willing to deliver on change; worse, is not willing to kill HC. and is not willing to let them bring the revolution to the party.  Sanders committed the mistake of eliminating himself from the contest by  his bullying and unsophisticated attacks on Hillary; he didn’t learn from Obama.

So, they are still looking to put their energy into a ‘political revolution’. Donald Trump is their next hope.

This is where the wheels come off the cart.

A bit closer to fascism

Even though Trump is running as a republican (he is a political weather vane, really), even though he has espouse racist and crude misogynistic feelings, even though he represents the opposite of what leftists and socialist stand for, Sanders followers find in Trump an alternative, not to the ‘corrupt establishment’, but to HC,  the avatar of that system.

Sanders’ followers obsession with HC shows to us that they are not well versed with the concepts they use as their motto: revolution and socialism,  and Sanders has been good at keeping them in the dark about them.

They are not fighting the oligarchs nor are they trying to change the class structure in the USA. They are fighting HC  who, in their eyes, represent all that is bad with humanity. She is the Goldstein of “1984”. They have poured all their anger and hatred into that one person, anything is better than her, even Trump. Considering that Sanders is not willing to,  figuratively?,  kill HC, and ‘older’ voters seem determined to elect her, for his followers the next best thing  is to follow the other ‘charismatic’ leader against the establishment: Trump. What is it they want from him?

They want Trump  to kill her, to humiliate and ridicule her as he has done with his opponents; they want him to show no mercy for her. That’s their ‘revolution’.

The danger

Sanders followers have shown their ignorance about the ‘revolution’, and that they are easily doped by charismatic leaders to the point of moving towards the right of the political spectrum…and that they are very angry and willing to act on it. The oligarchs have taken note and have started to use them as tools to repress other sectors of the working class and cultural groups.

The GOP is resolving its internal divisions, their fight with  “non-conservative” Trump, by manipulating the anger of the Sanders supporters and having them attack Trump to make him look ‘un-electable’. That they can do it so easily should worry every American.

The coordinated violent provocations at Trump’s rally smack of 1940s German fascists. “Berniebots” harassing  anyone who disagrees with them is now notorious, and gets them closer to their new alternate hero, Trump.  The scary part of this picture is that the oligarchs, through their MSM, have given their seal of approval for that behavior by saying that it has all been provoked by Trump’s ‘racist’ comment. Funny to see the MSM (Fox in particular) and the oligarchs complaining about racist comments from Trump.

Sanders too has done his part in creating and giving the seal of approval to this fascist behavior, and his party condones him. Now his supporters go to HC’s activities to provoke her and her followers.

Summing up, these fascist tactics and attacks are now part of our culture. Don’t expect them to go away after the elections.

Sanders helped the dem party kill the progressive movement, the anti-war movement and the third-party option. There are no options for the working and middle classes to fight the oligarchs. Americans are married to cut-throat capitalism.

Sanders effectiveness at betraying the progressive movement makes him the least qualified to be elected, and the most dangerous to us if he is.

Trump is what we all know he is. He is not an alternative either.

That leaves Hillary Clinton. She is not hiding anything. We know what she can and can’t give us. For the last 200 years we have elected men; it’s time to give a woman a chance. Hillary can’t be worse than the men who have ruled us since 9/11. Look at her record and you will find an imperfect politician who has tried to help the middle class, women and children and the poor.

Until the conditions for the third-party materializes, she is the least of all the evils, she is our only option in these elections. After the elections, the progressives and leftists should concentrate in making the Green Party a viable alternative to the next elections. Otherwise, it will be more of the same.

I Was One of the Most Ardent Hillary Haters on the Planet…Until I Read Her Emails

[This is a guest post from Anna Whitlock (not her real name) who has worked in online progressive politics for more than ten years and due to previous harassment – including someone publishing her child’s name and address – prefers not to use her real name until a Democratic nominee has been chosen.]

I have a confession to make: In 2008, I was one of the most ardent Hillary Clinton haters on the planet. I was ferocious about how much I didn’t want her to win the primaries, and I rejoiced the day she gave her concession speech.

I believed with all of my heart in Barack Obama in 2008, and saw Hillary Clinton as the one single impediment to his election and a soaring ​presidency. I believed in the “fierce urgency of now.”

I was impressed but unmoved by Hillary’s concession speech, still not ready to forgive the anger and harsh rhetoric which became so much of the 2008 primary campaign.

It was not until President Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State that my attitude began to soften, and it’s here I want to begin.

She was a great Secretary of State. Secretary John Kerry may be basking in the credit for closing the deals, but he walked through the doors Secretary Clinton opened for him.

Her tenure as Secretary of State, of course, led to the bogus email scandal, which in turn led to the slow-​drip release of the emails on her home server. ​I decided I was going to read them.​

In those emails, I discovered a Hillary Clinton I didn’t ​even ​know existed​.​

I found a woman who cared about employees who lost loved ones. I found a woman who, without exception, took time to write notes of condolence and notes of congratulations, no matter how busy she was. I found a woman who could be a tough negotiator and firm in her expectations, but still had a moment to write a friend with encouragement in tough times. She worried over people she didn’t know, and she worried over those she did.

And everywhere she went, her concern for women and children was ​clearly ​the first and foremost ​thing on her mind.

I​n those emails, I​ also found a woman who ​seemed to ​understand power and how to use it wisely. A woman of formidable intellect who actually understood the nuance​s​ of a thing, and how to strike a tough bargain.

I read every single one of the emails released in August, and what I found was someone who actually gave a damn about the country, the Democratic party, and all of our futures.

She watched along with all of us as the Affordable Care Act made its way through Congress, with the same anxiety and aggravation many of us felt, and she rejoiced when it finally passed. She knew the Democrats who voted against it in the House, and she knew the ones who put their political careers on the line in support of it.

The Hillary caricature you see in the press is not the Hillary Clinton I came to know by reading those emails.

Yes, she had powerful friends in powerful places — though I didn’t actually see any emails from Goldman Sachs. And yes, she approached those friends the very same way she approached people on her staff, or people she met in the course of being Secretary of State. She rejoiced in their joys and shared their sorrows. They weren’t just ticks on a political scoreboard. They were friends.

You could tell there were some squabbles internally with other members of the Obama administration, but there was also unflagging, utmost respect for the man who occupied the White House – the office she fought so valiantly to attain.

It’s a hard thing to swallow one’s pride and step to the side, but Hillary did it with class and with dignity. Not only that, she made the most of every minute of her tenure as Secretary of State. Not ​a day went by where she shirked the duty vested in her.

In short, she proved herself beyond what any other candidate has done, and she did it professionally, assertively, and without drama.

Here’s something else I learned about her through those emails​: She’ll fight. And she’ll fight hard. She won’t shy away from a renegade Congress and she won’t always play nice. But she does play by the rules, which is more than I can say for a lot of the candidates on the other side.

​Here’s one more reason I ​​believe in Hillary. My daughter first voted in 2012. This will be her second general election, and she is excited to have our first woman president succeed our first African-American president. She, too, believes that Hillary Clinton is someone who will not only preserve President Obama’s legacy, but build one of her own, one of inclusion and inspiration.

That’s history she – and I – can both ​believe in.

[Originally published 1/28/16] from http://bluenationreview.com/i-was-a-hillary-hater-until-i-read-her-emails/

What Has Hillary Clinton Accomplished?

 

bb

tumblr_o29snyVd3N1svzlzeo2_500.jpg

 

As New York Senator Hillary has worked closely with the Human Rights Campaign, which is why she [and not Bernie] was invited to speak before them.

Hillary enacted lifesaving policies as Secretary of State to save LGBTQ lives around the globe:

As secretary of state, Hillary advanced LGBT rights abroad and enforced stronger anti-discrimination regulations within the State Department, declaring on the global stage that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

She led the effort to pass the first-ever U.N. Resolution on LGBT Human Rights, launched the Global Equality Fund, ended State Department regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families equal rights, helped implement LGBT-friendly workplace policies, and updated the State Department’s policy so that transgender individuals’ passports reflect their true gender.

Hillary’s LGBT U.N. Resolution and Global Equality Fund is revolutionary. ​

Plus this:

hillary3

Hillary’s actions speak for themselves.

OUTBURST: Bernie Angrily Lectures Sandy Hook Families About Hillary

Here’s what Bernie told CBS News in response to the question, “What do you say to Sandy Hook families who say you should apologize for your position?”

I would say that I think we all are aware of what happened, and Sandy Hook is a tragedy beyond comprehension. But maybe Secretary Clinton might want to apologize to the families who lost their loved ones in Iraq or Secretary Clinton might want to apologize to the millions of workers in this country who lost their jobs because of the disastrous trade agreements that she supported. [http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-lectures-sandy-hook-families-about-hillary/]

 

Nothing but shocking.  As I and many others have been saying, for Sanders there are only two campaign lines: Hillary-hating and “the working class“. The man has no soul.

Sanders ‘Moral’ Revolution: The NY Daily News Interview

Sanders followers have assumed an attitude that they are the only ones with a moral agenda, they are the moral leaders in this election, and Hillary Clinton’s followers are either ignorant people or as immoral as “she is”. You can read and hear that attitude of moral superiority in the MSM comment sections and in online blogs, and hear them at YouTube.

You can NEVER win an argument with people whose claim is that they are morally superior than the others. This conceit in politics (and in religious fanatics) is the base over which tyrants and fascist stand. It could in part explain why Sanders followers find so much affinity with Trump, to the point of considering voting for him, not just out of spite, but because they actually think that Trump is a ‘different type’ of revolutionary.

But Sanders too is framing his campaign as a “moral” campaign; e.g., he argues about the “immorality” of the 0.1%er. The problem with morality in politics (a place where morality is not the main concern, power is) is that you then have to be consistent with what you defend as moral: because “moral” is in the eye of the beholder.

Here I discuss Sanders responses to the NY Daily News interview.

Not only you will not find any substance in Sanders political ‘revolution’, you will not find a steady moral support for his ‘revolution’: it’s all about “trades and income”. Missing from his description of his revolution is the compassion for women and Blacks. We have seen what he thinks of Trump’s attack on women last week: he said the right thing to do is to ignore it. And here, Sanders again refers to Blacks victims of police violence  as “ranting mentally ill” people.

In this post I point at some of those inconsistent “moral” arguments, and at how Sanders’ lack of understanding of the problems he is proposing to “fix” is immoral in itself.

I’m not a professional writer or blogger, so I will just put my observations in bullet type format.

  1. Sanders said that it is immoral that Wall Street “are trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes”.
  • Sanders himself has refused to disclose his taxes. He is right: when someone hides his taxes, it usually is because they are not paying their fair share of taxes. One has to conclude that Sanders refusal to show his tax papers indicates that he is not paying his fair share of taxes, that he is lying about his income. That would make him ‘immoral’, wouldn’t it?

2. The moral argument that big corporations leave the American workers for cheaper labor worldwide: “The only thing that matters is that I can make a little bit more money. That the dollar is all that is almighty. And I think that is the moral fabric.”

  • But what about the greed of businessmen whose profit comes from manufacturing guns and war armaments? Sanders unleashed the police on progressives, when he was mayor, to protect those greedy CEOs who were manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Where is the moral argument there? That it is OK to be greedy and manufacture weapons of mass destruction if you are doing it at home and giving your people a “decent salary”?
  • Is a war-based economy something we should pursue as something moral only because it creates jobs? Shouldn’t we be against a “progress” based on killing other human beings in poor nations?
  • Sanders says that he has not considered the “unintended consequences” of breaking the banks. “So I can’t say, if you’re saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

3. How does Sanders defines ‘morality’?

  • “To me, what moral is, I’ve got to be concerned about you. You’ve got to be concerned about my wife.” I’ll leave you to make sense of that one.

4. How does Sanders defines the moral aspect of his revolution? For an answer, he refers you to the   Pope; ask him. Sanders can’t explain his ‘revolution’ except by referring you to either  wiki to read about New Zealand’s economy or to the Pope:

  • “I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy.”

5. What about the immorality of corporate globalism? Sanders is a globalist, so he can’t see anything immoral with it. It only needs to be tweaked. He only cares that it is “unfair” to workers, not to women, but to workers in general.

    • “I’m not anti-trade. We live in a global economy, we need trade.

6. So, then, how do we make globalism more moral, more “fair”? The implication is that globalism is here to stay, no need to question it in itself. Let’s just make it “fair”, as if you can negotiate with the oligarchs to drop you some crumbs. So, how Sanders define “fair” in a globalist world?

  • So you have to have standards. And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States.”
  • Sanders proposes, in the interview, that while it is true that his trade positions are the same as Trump’s, what separates both of them is that definition of “fair trade”. I’m sure you can see the many questions his definition of fair trade raises. There’s no morals there, just give them a better salary. The rest stays the same.

About the “too big to fail”: His ignorance about the problem and the solutions is appalling

  1. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct?”  The “we” is correct because HE did bailed them out. The immoral part of this is that: a) he did bail them out and b) denies he did it. SEE HERE.
  2. Sanders’ revolution against Wall Street is based on a so-called moral ground, he knows not how WS functions nor how he is going to change them into  ‘moral entities’: Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it.
  3. He acknowledges that the president has no power to make any changes or determinations about breaking the big banks. But he, as president will make the revolution, some how.
  4. He is not assuring or promising that the “too big to fail” will be broken in his administration. He is saying that he would EMPOWER the Fed Res to determine if  and only if those in the list qualify as “too big to fail”. But we saw he knows nothing about the Fed, and if you leave it to the Feds to decide who is too big, you will see no changes.
  5. He would let the banks decide if and how they would ‘re-structure’ themselves. Now, that’s revolutionary.
  6. He acknowledges that he has not considered what to do when the SCOTUS kills his plan. Sanders: It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
  7. He acknowledges that he doesn’t know what the “unintended consequences” of his ‘revolution’ will be, but he knows the economy in general will get better…by magic.
  8. He trashed Hillary because she is not bold enough, bc she believes in “incremental changes”, but he wants to do it fast, not planning, not caring for ‘unintended consequences’…
  9. The revolution done with “voter turn out”. He is not supporting any candidates for Congress or the Senate, but he says if he wins, dems win automatically in Congress.

About Palestinians

  1. Palestinians: “Israel has a right to exist in peace and security without having to face terrorist attacks…” no right to self-defense for Palestinians and no right to access to the  International Court either…and don’t ask him why!! Daily News: Why not? Sanders: Why not? Daily News: Why not, why it…Sanders: Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe..

About drones and torture

  • He likes drones.
  • Torture..yes: Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo…Sanders: Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.
  • The morals of war: there’s none in his discussion. He didn’t say a word about stopping these wars. He is against the death penalty, but OK with killing in the battle field with drones; he implied it is a convenience because you don’t have to deal with issues of death penalty and legal rights at home when you arrest a ‘terrorist’.

About Blacks:

  •  Sanders: Such as do what many other countries are doing. Look, you’ve got somebody who’s clearly mentally ill outside, right? Ranting and raving, and maybe they have a knife in their hands. Are there ways to deal with that issue other than shooting that person?
  • He thinks that ALL victims killed by cops are “ranting mentally ill, maybe with a knife in their hands”.

Other post relevant to this discussion:

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/sanders-at-brookings-institution/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/bernie-or-bust-immoral-argument/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanders Won’t Defend Women From Attacks – Stands Up For Muslims

Hillary Clinton wasted no time in responding to Trump (T)’s remarks about punishing  women who choose to have an abortion; no one had to ask her, she tweeted her reaction immediately. She denounced him and the GOP as dangerous to women’s rights.

Sanders, on the other hand, did not respond to Trump’s comments. Were it not for Rachel Maddow asking him for a reaction (see video below) he would have simply ignored Trump’s attack on women. In that interview with her he explained why it was OK for him to ignore Trump’s attack on women.

Sanders made it patently clear that women’s issues have no priority in his campaign. He said that Trump’s attacks on the working class and Muslims are more important – and can’t be ignored, than his attack on women.

Sanders totally dismissed Trump’s comments as “stupid remarks” that do not deserve media attention. He even got  visibly annoyed when Rachel questioned him about his dismissal of the comments as less important compared with ‘real problems’, i.e., the economy, workers salaries, the environment…You name the problem, it is more important than women’s problems.

You could even hear Sanders laughing when Rachel quoted Cruz as being even more explicit at how the GOP would attack abortion rights. [at 2:06 in the video]

Interestingly enough, Sanders is thoroughly offended by Trump’s attacks on Muslims, warning that Trump’s comments put Muslims in danger of losing rights and being physically harmed. He is so worried about their well-being that he sees it fit for himself to come out and make forceful public condemnation of said attacks. Those attacks deserve the media attention.

But Sanders feels no need to protect women from politicians who threaten their lives, their rights, their health, their freedom and their human rights.

Of all the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the ONLY ONE who includes women’s rights as part of her platform. That is one of the reasons she is hated by

  • many men,
  • by the ‘establishment’,
  • by conservatives and the GOP,
  • by the pro-life movement…

All that hatred that you see in the MSM, all those negative ads and headlines…it all stem from this unmentionable fear of a woman standing for women’s rights.

hillary3

This is why haters hate her so much, including Sanders’ followers. This is why she is such a ‘scary’ and ‘bitchy’ woman who “screams” instead of talking. 

 

In social and political history, nothing scares the bejesus out of powerful men more than assertive women. Hillary Clinton is that type of woman. Hillary has a history of standing for women’s rights and abortion rights. That’s a no-no for men who hate women.

If you are a woman, if you are one of those progressive men who understand the causes and sources of the oppression of women;  if you are a man or a woman who worries about the future of your daughter and, finally, if you are a man or woman who understand that women rights are human rights, then you vote for Hillary Clinton.

Because all the current candidates, including Sanders, dismiss women rights, you can expect their administration to trample on those rights.

It’s time for women to assert their needs. It’s time for women’s issues to come to the front; it’s time to stop relegating the oppression of women to the end of the line of progress.

Only Hillary Clinton can do that.

 

 

 

Bernie Sanders’s false claim that he has released his full federal tax returns – The Washington Post

Plainly put, Sanders has not released any full federal tax return — and earns Four Pinocchios.

Source: Bernie Sanders’s false claim that he has released his full federal tax returns – The Washington Post

 

Caught lying and possibly cheating. He is hiding something, maybe the millions he has but makes his followers believe he is poor. He said that, if he submitted his 2014 tax papers and nothing has changed financially, he doesn’t have to show 2015 earnings. Expect he will allow Wall Street’ CEOs to use the same ‘logic’.

Sanders is a cheater, a crook and a liar. Caught cheating.

Unfair MSM Treatment of Sanders…

I compiled this list of headlines from the Washington Post to show how ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ is their coverage of Sanders and Clinton.

You will see that the headlines for Sanders (45) are nearly all  positive, never is there a personal attack on him, never a question about his credibility or morals, and never a check at his political record. The opposite is true of the headlines for Hillary Clinton (40).

Sanders followers have nothing to complain about the MSM; it has the hots for him.

Headlines for Sanders:45 positive

Highlights from Bernie Sanders’s campaign, in pictures
The senator from Vermont has become Hillary Clinton’s chief rival in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The idea that Bernie Sanders has been too negative to debate Hillary Clinton is ridiculous
The Latest: Wisconsin voters want to hear from Sanders
The Latest: Sanders reaches out to black voters in Milwaukee
Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a real run for the nomination
Jane Sanders: Winning Wisconsin wouldn’t mean less because of a large white population
Ralph Nader: Why Bernie Sanders was right to run as a Democrat
A meal at Denny’s finally convinced Jane Sanders that her husband should run
Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias[meaning it was true!]
Sanders references the Holocaust when discussing Trump’s ‘intolerance’ toward Muslims
Bernie Sanders calls Donald Trump ‘a nutcase’ during Wisconsin rally
The key details missing from Bernie Sanders’s free college proposal
The crazy logic behind an alliance of Trump-Sanders supporters
Why did the New York Times change its mind about Bernie Sanders?
Bernie Sanders’s most vitriolic supporters really test the meaning of the word ‘progressive’
These congressional candidates got inspiration from Sanders – but little else
How an obscure socialist text from the ’80s predicted Bernie Sanders’s rise
Bernie Sanders draws more than 30,000 to stops around Washington state Sunday
What Bernie Sanders would do to America
Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?
16 negative stories in 16 hours after Sunday’s debate? Not quite.
Awkward reality for Bernie Sanders: A strategy focused on whiter states [but he’s not a ‘racist’. For HC, it counts as ‘racism’.]
Celeb endorsement of the week: Rosario Dawson for Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders’s huge Washington win was exactly what his campaign needed

Bernie Sanders trades laughs, serious talk with Jimmy Kimmel on latest day of Democratic voting

What Bernie Sanders still doesn’t get about arguing with Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders was a trend-setter back in 1967, too

Why did Bernie Sanders dominate Saturday? Caucuses in states with smaller black populations.

Is democratic socialism the American Dream?

New York Times public editor raps newspaper for edits to story on Bernie Sanders’s record

Sanders has gotten nastier. Does it help explain his staying power?
Where once he berated the ‘billionaire class,’ senator now focuses on Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders and the clash of memory
The ‘Sanders Democrat’ is paving the way for the radical left

Sanders doesn’t need much explaining in liberal Seattle

Bernie Sanders bolts interview with Arizona TV reporter

Bernie Sanders: ’30 Years of Speeches’ | Campaign 2016

Bernie Sanders tells supporters he sees a winning streak coming

How Bernie Sanders is hijacking the Democratic Party to be elected as an independent

The new Democratic Party proposal to rival Bernie Sanders’s socialism

Bernie Sanders’s praise for communist Cuba just became an issue. But do people even care anymore?

Clinton criticizes Sanders for dismissing Trump’s abortion ‘punishment’ gaffe
Stephen Colbert knows why that bird REALLY landed on Bernie Sanders’s lectern

‘Excuse me!’ Bernie Sanders doesn’t know how to talk about black people

Sanders’s ‘yuge’ Twitter moment during debate with Clinton

Bernie Sanders is right: Bill Clinton’s welfare law doubled extreme poverty

Bernie Sanders won the debate’s Google fight — in more ways than one

Maybe Bernie Sanders is right about trade negotiators
Sanders: In it to win it but building grass-roots enthusiasm for Democrats regardless

This Hillary Clinton attack on Bernie Sanders makes no sense

Bernie Sanders needs to get serious on foreign policy

Bernie Sanders’s real problem with black and Hispanic voters

Despite what his critics say, Bernie Sanders insists he is not championing a ‘radical’ agenda

Why an arm of the Koch empire is praising Bernie Sanders

HILLARY CLINTON: 40 negatives

“What if the problem with Hillary Clinton’s campaign is Hillary Clinton?
Sometimes the problem is you.”

The idea that Bernie Sanders has been too negative to debate Hillary Clinton is ridiculous
Chelsea Clinton’s bungled answer on her mother’s college affordability plan
Clinton lashes out at Sanders for ‘lying’ about her. Here’s how to settle this.
What some men have against Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton must face the music — and the FBI
The Latest: Clinton laments GOP’s ‘implacable hostility’
Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a real run for the nomination
A former top New York Times editor says Clinton is ‘fundamentally honest.’ So…
Clinton pushes gun control at emotional meeting in Wisconsin
Second federal judge grants legal discovery into Clinton use of private email server
The Latest: Wisconsin voters want to hear from Sanders
Clinton faces disruptive Sanders supporters in New York
The Latest: Sanders reaches out to black voters in Milwaukee
There are dozens of FBI agents involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation
Do gendered comments help or hurt Hillary Clinton?
The Miami debate was Clinton’s personal nightmare
Bernie Sanders pulls even with Hillary Clinton in a new poll. Because it’s the economy, stupid.
The Republican race serves as a useful distraction from how bad things are for Clinton
This is the closest thing we’ve ever had to a Hillary Clinton political manifesto
How can Hillary Clinton and other female politicians be ‘likable enough?’ A new study offers guidance.
What’s next for Bernie Sanders’s revolution?
Hillary Clinton will have to avoid alienating his supporters.
5 times Hillary Clinton has played fast and loose with the facts on Bernie Sanders’s record
Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server
Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal.
Why Hillary Clinton’s ‘super-predator’ concession is such a big moment for political protest
Why did Hillary Clinton lose Michigan but win Ohio? White voters.
Clinton’s Benghazi moment rules Twitter at Democratic debate
U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system
The Libya debacle undermines Clinton’s foreign policy credentials
Hillary Clinton’s struggles with the death penalty date back to her Senate days

Hillary Clinton draws criticism for her response to violence at Trump’s Chicago rally

Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server
Clinton regrets 1996 remark on ‘super-predators’ after encounter with activist

Eight years later, Bill Clinton is causing headaches for his wife again
Team Hillary is betting big on the Obama coalition

Clinton ahead in Missouri, but race in limbo pending decision on recount
Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans
Democrats have a lot riding on Hillary Clinton. Which is why the word ‘immunity’ should make them very nervous.

Trump vs Sanders: Trump Wins

OK, that title is not an endorsement of the Donald. I just want you to put a pause on your binging on all primaries-related things to consider the following proposition:

That The award for most revolutionary candidate in the  2016 Presidential Primaries  goes to…the Donald.

Now, settle down; I have a few goodies for you to munch on.

But first, he receives the award for clearly beating Sanders at portraying  a presidential candidate who shakes and threatens  the elite’s political order, and instills fear and dread in their hearts.

So credible is his performance that he has garnered the oligarchs’ hate, who are conspiring to illegally derail his candidacy. Sanders’ performance, on the other hand,  has been praised and encouraged by them. He hasn’t even been accused of being  a ‘red threat’ or a ‘communist’, despite his ‘socialist’ trappings.

The character Trump has been playing in the primaries  is that of an anti-globalist. Sanders has been relegated to supporting actor attacking the democratic party’s  ‘establishment’.

OK. Now seriously.

OUTSOURCED JOBS = Globalism

Let’s start with Trump.

The Donald has consistently been saying that outsourcing of jobs is “killing us” and has consistently advocated imposing penalties to corporations that outsource jobs

Donald’s “Mexican wall”, which, of course, “they are going to pay for it“, is a pain in the globalists’ derriere, not because they are not racists, but because it is an obstacle to their privilege to access global cheap labor, whether in Mexico or China.

The mere act of voicing a challenge to that privilege converts that person in the enemy of the globalists and of their representatives in Congress and the White House.

global

Then, by being the ONLY one in these primaries challenging the globalists and becoming their enemy, the Donald becomes the true radical. Further, I argue that his appeal to some minorities and the working class has to do with them understanding, at least at a subconscious level, why he is being attacked by the ‘establishment’.

“That’s why I’m doing so well in Michigan—because people say I’m the only one who understands what’s going on.” Donald Trump On Ford, Carrier, Shipping Jobs To Mexico: ‘I’m The Only One Who Understands What’s Going On’

Of course, in politics, as in life, to be a radical is not necessarily a good thing. Trump’s ideological (apparent) anti-globalism is soaked in racism too. Based on his comments, he seems to be a paleoconservative, anti-interventionist, and nationalist; words as scary to the elite as the words ‘zika virus’ are to a pregnant woman. That’s why you seldom see those words used in the MSM.

But paleo/conservatism is not good for the working class either. It’s a complicated existence, people. Trump’s ‘radicalism’ belongs to the class of small(er) business  owners. That’s not a crime. The working class shares interests with them and the same enemy: the globalists.

So, what about Sanders?

SANDERS  ORWELLIAN DEFENSE OF THE OLIGARCHY

Sanders is NOT  an anti-globalist.

Words are important, and Sanders has been very careful with them; and if he can’t handle the words, he just evade the topic. Case in point, you won’t find any reference at his website to globalism, nor to foreign policy. Funny thing, the Donald addresses the issue, but not the ‘socialist’ candidate.

But you could get a sense of his position from these few carefully crafted sentences:

“Nobody I know believes we should place a wall around this country. Trade is a good thing, …

Globalism is safe in Sanders’ hands is what that means.

…our overall trade policy must also change for corporations to start investing in America and creating jobs here again, and not just in China and other low wage countries.”

This is the thing: a ‘socialist revolutionary’ would have the political understanding that globalism is the wooden stake through the heart, not only of national interests, but of international working class solidarityThere is no “fair trade” when workers are pitted against each other for crumbs. You can’t have “fair trade” if foreign policy is based on militaristic defense of the interests of global corporations, which is what these wars are about: protecting their markets and cheap labor. Globalism and its ideology has to be stopped.

Everything is interconnected. Sanders refusal to talk about his foreign policy plans indicates he is hiding it; it’s no out of  ignorance. 

Sanders  Elementary Math for the Working Class:  ” the tiny .1% of 1%”

Sanders has been very careful not to condemn the entire class of oligarchs. He has persistently called the attention to the “tiny one tenth of one percent” of it. It matters not only because it is a matter of perception, but because he is the ‘socialist’ who should be using his campaign to educate the youngsters about what the elite doesn’t want them to learn: the reality of  class wars.

Sanders has achieved the dubious honor of bringing the progressives to the point of giving up fighting the oligarchy altogether when he focuses their attention to fighting against the “tiny .1% of 1%” in Wall Street.

That is Orwellian, folks. Our “only” enemy is that tiny % of  “the billionaire class”, the “greediest elements of that class”. No mention to other sectors who are part of the elite: the owners of the media, Monsanto, military corporations, surveillance and digital/software kings…How do you measure the “greediest” element?  Can we solve our problems with the oligarchs by eliminating the few “greediest” men in that class?

It’s not a class war when only a few are portrayed as the  offenders, when it is reduced to a moral issue, i.e., “the greediest elements”.

The working class has been blinded, its identity as working class has been distorted. It has been reduced to the category of an “angry” component of global capitalism which the globalists need to appease. Obama and now Sanders have thrown a tarp over the oligarchs to hide them from the ire of the victim of their globalism.

Trump is not the answer, mainly because no one knows what the hell is below that puff of yellow hair. Sanders is not it either because he is another Obama in disguise.

As for Hillary, we know what she stands for, whether you like her or not. She has never campaigned as the big white hope or revolutionary. Obama defeated her by dangling the carrot of “hope and change”. See where that took the working class, national and international. Now we have Sanders dangling the same carrot, this time one dyed red.

Hillary has a history of TRYING to help when she was First Lady: in favor of Palestinians, and trying a better health system, better than Obamacare. She has been paying dearly for taking a stand for the Palestinians; it is one of the reasons why the media vilifies her, but not the ‘commie’.  You should ask yourselves why the MSM attacks her and not him. (Pss, it’s not because she is “a liar” or “immoral”. The MSM and the GOP don’t care for that.) Sanders, well, in my post you can see how he defends the Zionists.

Hillary offers no utopia.

You can deal with reality, not with utopias.

I recommend this article for those interested in a deeper analysis of Sanders’ campaign.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1241

Posts where I discuss these candidates and the levels of comfort they represent to the oligarchs.

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/sanders-and-msm-attacks/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/sanders-at-brookings-institution/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/sanders-and-the-billionaire-class/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/trump-globalism-and-working-class/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/trump-smoking-the-elite-out-of-its-vault/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/trump-sanders-two-party-betrayal/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/the-trump-appeal/

PS: Being anti-Zionist does not equal being anti-Jewish.

Hating Hillary

Watching CNN during Super Tuesday, you would think that the candidate that the MSM says is making the world tremble and would trash the world economy is Trump, but it isn’t.  Hillary Clinton  is the one the MSM hates even more than they claim to hate Trump.

They hate her because she is ‘a liar’, because of the ’email scandal’. That is more threatening to them than the Donald’s hate speech and his outrageous lies during his campaign. He is supported by the KKK, but everybody hates Hillary.

What gives? This hatred of HC is not new, they can’t claim they hate her because of the emails: the hatred has been going on since 2008 primaries. There were no ’email scandals’ then, no Benghazi.

The real reason for the hatred is that she was part of the legal team that impeached Nixon. And that she is a woman.

And don’t forget her stand in support of the Palestinians as a First Lady. The Zionists will never forgive her for that one.

Why Hillary Is Unelectable

There has to be an explanation for why the MSM, and the financial elite they represent, has viciously attacked Hillary Clinton (HC) on both primaries (2008 and 2016). C’mon, in both instances they supported two long shots, first a Black man carrying a ‘socialist and anti-capitalist’ ‘baggage’, and now a self-proclaimed ‘revolutionary socialist’, Sanders. One has to be dead wood to not notice that today the MSM peels HC alive and totally gives a pass to Sanders. No one is stirring the socialist-communist bogey man against Sanders. Imagine if HC were to talk about socialism! She would be dead by now.

Don’t tell me the MSM skews her because she is ‘dishonest’; that would be an insult to YOUR own intelligence. The owners of the MSM are the pot calling the kettle black. And don’t deny that Sanders is being given a pass: look at all the news magazines online and count how many headlines include an offensive word against Sanders (none) or  fear mongering content about his socialist inclinations. Hillary Clinton is the bitch, the liar and ‘dishonest’ woman, more like a witch with a broom and cauldron. So, what gives?

They don’t hate her because she’s ‘dishonesty’ (anyone who believes the MSM is honest and ‘offended’ by her ‘lies’ is…naive); they hate her because she helped in the IMPEACHMENT of RICHARD NIXON. That’s it.;, well that’s one reason. That’s why they will not only block her presidential aspirations, they do it with gusto: dragging her through the mud.

That has been Hillary Clinton’s crime all along. They first tried to impeach her husband over a sexual affair as payback, but because they failed (Republicans), they want to  make sure she  will not be elected president of the USA.

You can look it up. Every right-wing magazine online talks about that, they can’t forget. And those who want Sanders to win join are joining the right wingers in the attacks on her. The woman can’t win: she’s equally attacked by right and left wings. But why by the left?

The American ‘left’ share something with the male oligarchy: misogyny.

The other reason for her unelectability: she’s a WOMAN, and a feminist one at it. If you think that Elizabeth Warren will be treated less brutally if she runs for the presidency, don’t bet on it. The US male oligarchy is not ready for a woman, least of all the kings of Wall Street and Silicon Valley (supporting Sanders for the moment being); and less ready for a woman who paraded herself with…gulp…feminists in international women’s rights conferences. The fact that Hillary is unapologetic about being a feminist doesn’t seat well with the male oligarchs that rule our lives.

And the ‘left’ have given all signs of misogyny when they accuse her of giving ‘priority’ to women and ‘identity politics’ over the sacrosanct (male) workers and working class.

The other reason why she is unelectable is that they rather elect a pseudo socialist who supports the Israelis (Zionists) than a women who does the same thing, but who showed her support to the Palestinians when she was  FLOTUS. It’s hard for the Israelis to forget those photos of Hillary embracing Palestinians. They have made her pay for it, and she learned the lesson. Except that they can’t trust she REALLY learned the lesson…and neither do I.

That’s my theory. You can dismiss it, but there is truth in there, it’s not totally ridiculous. But she will prevail despite the like-gang-attacks on her coming from the right and the left in unison.

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=282452&h=530&w=758

This was the ‘kiss of death’ for HC. It is the beginning of the Hillary bashing tradition. This photo was used to portray her as a lesbian in the MSM. Then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) and kisses Suha Arafat, wife of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, November 11, 1999. (photo credit:REUTERS)

From the internet. The ghost of Nixon impeachment will follow her as long as she is in politics. They will never forgive her for that. That’s why her rivals are elected over her: better a pseudo socialist than her. It’s the establishment making the call, not you. You are just being manipulated, as usual.

Bernie Sanders and the MSM Attacks [updated]

Content
MSM and Obama
MSM and Sanders
The Big Question: Why?

All presidential primaries have three basic components: the public/voters, the candidates with their respective party, and the main-stream media (MSM).

Generally speaking, the MSM elects the winner and loser candidate with its power to shape public opinion. Wow. That’s some claim, isn’t it? You would accept/reject that proposition depending on your political inclination, that’s a fact. Chances are some progressives would agree with my claim. It is not for nothing that the MSM is called the fourth power, and that governments all around the globe fight to control it: it can start or stop a revolution.

For example:

Protesters scuffle with police along inaugural route WASHINGTON (AP) George W. Bush’s motorcade lurched through the largest inaugural protests since Richard Nixon on Saturday, enduring thousands of protesters who hurled insults, bottles, tomatoes and an egg. Protesters clashed briefly with police clad in riot gear at a few flash points while Bush remained inside his armored stretch car for most of the parade up a soggy, cold Pennsylvania Avenue. Police ordered the motorcade to slow in anticipation of some protests, and then to speed through others. A couple of protesters threw bottles and tomatoes before the presidential limousine arrived, and one hurled an egg that landed near the motorcade, the Secret Service said.

The MSM didn’t show to the public the massive protest (lots of African-Americans too) on George W. Bush’s first presidential inauguration  after stealing the elections (remember?), and the push-and-shove with the police. Here, pick any article.   Because of that omission a people’s ‘spring revolt’ of sorts was crushed and, to  this day, people believe that the American public passively accepted the Florida decision on the Gore vs Bush election. So, let’s take that first sentence in the paragraph above as true, if only for argument sake. (See my post explaining how MSM’s uncritical support is a payout to Sanders for his vote for the Stimulus Package that saved Wall Street.)

MSM and Obama

In addition, for all the ‘hope and change’  and the  revolution of the Obama primary campaign vs Clinton in 2008, the MSM basically hanged Hillary Clinton (HC) to the high tree of misogyny for all to see, and stood by Obama. Even Fox News capitalist owner, Rupert Murdock fell totally in love with Obama.

This is Rupert Murdoch gushing over Obama:

“He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”
The Perfect Storm or How Obama is going to wreck this country

Clearly, when the capitalist owner of news corporation  like Fox News feels like that about ‘revolutionary’ Obama, it could only mean that Obama is not a ‘red threat’ to the capitalist elite. That link is to my blog for the 2008 primaries where I correctly described how Obama was going to stand for Wall Street. Sorry, people, it did happen. I had other hit-and-misses there.

Denying that it was the MSM who gave Obama his victory with its attack on HC, shows lack of awareness of the tools used by its propaganda machine (the use of psychological techniques, manipulation of language and images…), or gross opportunism. Hey, these techniques are in the curriculum of colleges and universities, it’s not ‘conspiracy theory’.

MSM and Sanders

Today’s democratic primaries is deja-vu all over again, with the difference that today the MSM is hanging HC on the tree of ‘dishonesty’. The email gossip has not stuck and, today,  misogyny is not PC, it can’t be blatantly used day in and day out as they used to do in 2008. They have to find something to destroy her, so they hammer on ‘honesty’. [See True Reasons Why Hillary Is Unelectable ] But, they can’t attack one candidate and ignore the other. The MSM follows attacks on HC with propaganda about how ‘trustworthy’ Bernie Sanders is. Three examples:

Bernie Sanders, Your Cool Socialist Grandpa    NY Times

Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire     WaPo

Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton on honesty, battle against Wall Street  NY Daily News

Sanders has profited from the media’s lack of interest in challenging his self-presentation as a kind of non-politician. He’s similarly benefitted from his mostly-unchallenged self-presentation as a kind of happy warrior — angry and loud, yes, but in a lovably earnest kind of way. The Clinton campaign has desperately tried to get the media to challenge this image.  Salon

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right [added 2/19/16] – uber elitist conservative capitalist endorsing Sanders at the Washington Post.


The Big Question: Why?

That’s the missing question during both the 2008 and in today’s primaries campaigns: Why did the MSM worked for Obama and is today working for Sanders, two ‘socialists’ supposedly questioning the sacrosanct capitalist system? You have to be dead wood to not have wondered about this, if at least once on a trip to Wal-Mart.

That question can not  and should not be asked by the public because the answer is more dangerous to WS and the ‘corrupt elite’ than Obama and Sanders ‘socialist-revolution’ campaigns. The MSM must keep the elections to the level of personality battles: who is more ‘honest’, more ‘likable’…

A public with no political acumen can’t ask the pertinent questions. The job of the MSM is to prevent the public from going there. There’s got to be a reason why they hate HC more than some ‘socialist’. You can bet your house it is NOT because she is ‘dishonest’.

Why is it that two candidates considered ‘long shots’ are openly supported by the MSM? Why is the historical bogey man, socialism and ‘revolution’, together in one sentence, not causing a barrage of ‘red scare’ alerts in the MSM? Even Silicon Valley tech elite is with Sanders.

Clearly Sanders is no threat to the capitalists. Period.

“In November 2015, Sanders announced that he would be a Democrat from then on, and will run in any future elections as a Democrat.”

bernie

Voted YES on $192B additional “anti-recession” stimulus spending. (Jul 2009).Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic “recovery” package. (Feb 2009).Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) Voted YES on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)In 2000, Sanders voted with republicans for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a landmark bill that blocked federal agencies from regulating credit default swaps — the complex contracts at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis.

commi